From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 07:07:22 CST
In <200301171529.h0HFT855030010@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> writes:
>In <3E25CCE7.5000501@Sonietta.blilly.com>, on 01/15/2003
> at 04:04 PM, Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> said:
>>That's the same charter which says
>My reading of the charter is that we we to produce multiple
>documents, some of which could have been experimental in nature.
>Perhaps we need a base document that says must accept, should not
>generate until a supporting STD is passed and an experimental RFC that
>specifies raw UTF-8 plus gatewaying requirements. If we go that
>route, is there any reason that the experimental RFC could not be
>submitted first?
Yes, that might be possible, but having taken the trouble to achieve a
draft with a rough consensus here, there seems little point in redoing the
whole thing unnecessarily.
OTOH, if it appeared to be the case that our draft would have difficulty
passing through the IESG, then splitting it into standard and an
experimental parts might be the way out of it. I don't think that is going
to happen on the pure UTF-8 bit, but it might yet arise for some other
smaller issues. I am discussing some of these with our chairman and
others, and it may be that we need to have discussion with the Area
Director. But for the moment, I would rather finish bringing our present
text into line with what we decided after the poll.
There are in any cases a whole raft of enhancements (notably those related
to security) which we have decided to leave to future extensions (which
may turn out to be standards traxk, experimental, or both).
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5