On 19 Feb 2025, at 14:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Rewriting history is not the point here. The text under debate is objective background to why look-alikes in IDNA are a potential problem. I could understand a critique that this background material should perhaps be in an appendix to the draft, with the main text focussed on the normative material. I understand that not everybody may like John's writing style. I don't understand a critique suggesting that it's inappropriate to provide this background. The text under discussion is not "background", it is requirements. Further, it is explicitly labelled in the document as "the position of the IETF". What many of us are saying is that these requirements do not meet strong (or possibly even rough) consensus. --Paul Hoffman -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
