Re: Contents of the IDNA Derived Properties registry (was; Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The discussion make it clear to me that the tasks for IANA are not clear.   It seems that there needs to be a table for each supported version of Unicode.  Thats document should state that clearly.  It is a point where RFC 5892 seems to be vague, and we should take this opportunity to remove the ambiguity.

This document or a future one needs to answer the following question:
Who is responsible for generating a new table when the next version of Unicode comes out?

Russ


On Jun 8, 2011, at 8:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> (ii) The relevant ADs consider whether a document clarifying the
> registry content and/or identification information is needed and
> consult with IANA on that topic as appropriate.  If the answer
> is "yes", let's get that document posted and start debating what
> changes, if any, should be made using it as a foundation (rather
> than finding new weeds to drag 5892bis into).

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]