clear understaning/evaluation on what a long term solution would be. Moreover, the proposed decision should be made after thorough analysis of possible problems when non-ACE is used (e.g. UTF-8) which I suggested at the San Diego meeting.
Dongman Lee
>
>
> -----원본메시지-----
> 보낸사람: "James Seng/Personal"
> 받는사람: idn@ops.ietf.org
> 날짜: 2001/01/24(수)06:38
> 제목: Re: [idn] San Diego Meeting Notes
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to re-emphasis a few 'consensus' in the meeting in San
> Diego.
>
> a) Requirements I-D to move to Last Call after last minor edition.
>
> b) Strawpoll agrees with Protocol Design Team recommendation to focus
> on "ACE on Application" now but do not rejecting a longer term
> solution in future.
>
> c) Strawpoll agrees that the Nameprep Design Team is working in the
> right direction. (See Nameprep-02)
>
> If you have any objection (I know a few of you do), please raise them
> now.
>
> If there is no major objection, then the next step would include
>
> 1. Zita will do the Requirements -04 and we will move to Last Call.
>
> 2. Protocol Design Team (or someone) should start working on writing
> an I-D for the IDN Protocol. As it stands now, IDNA seem the closest
> we have.
>
> 3. An ACE Design Team may be form to investigate what is the correct
> ACE to use for (2).
>
> In additional, I would also like to propose to update the Goals and
> Milestone section of the WG Charter to reflect our progress more
> accurately.
>
> Your comments would be appreciated.
>
> -James Seng
>
>
>
>
>
>
>