Stephane, >> In addition, experience has shown a number of real or perceived >> defects or inadequacies with the protocol. >> > > Hold on. Is the WG really supposed to work on "perceived" defects? > Either these defects are real or they are not. If they are not real, > for instance, if they are FUD (this is quite common in the IDN arena), > they should *not* be addressed by the WG. > Right. But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we have only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a particular issue is really a defect. Understanding which specific issues have to be fixed is typically WG work in a bis spec effort. And obviously, if a particular issue is mistakenly believed to be a problem, some additional explanation in the final spec may be useful to reduce future FUD. Jari _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf