Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > This is a long-awaited standard, addressing one of the few missing > pieces in the internationalisation of the Internet protocols. +1 > I appreciate also the historical materials in appendices A and B > and I wish more RFCs have such background information. +2 Hopefully somebody can confirm that IND is correct, or not. For HT and FF I hope the final version will somehow express that both are not really bad, and as far as they're bad FF is worse than HT. My impression from reading the draft was exactly the opposite, FF not too bad, HT really bad, that's odd for protocols allowing WSP. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf