[ga] Re: New Versions of IDNA Protocol Revision Proposals Posted

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 08:45:05PM -0500,
 Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
 a message of 50 lines which said:

> In fact, it is widely understood that IDNAbis is needed. 

No. It is widely understood that changes are necessary but there is no
agreement on which changes. The only one which probably achieves 100 %
consensus is the problem of the limitation to Unicode 3.2 (RFC 4690,
section 1.4 and 5.2), which is very annoying, since some useful
scripts (such as tifinagh) have been introduced since. After that,
BiDi issues are probably also close from a real consensus. But the
rest of RFC 4690 is certainly *not* consensual.

> (See RFC 4690.)

There are many things that are very wrong in RFC 4690, such as
everything related to confusable issues.

> But rather than charter a formal WG, the IETF leadership opted to
> let the work be done via a more informal "design team"

Yes, and why, if not because there is non consensus on the required
changes?

> I hope that is not what you are saying, because IDNAbis is needed,

No.