[idn] WG Update

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

In the last London meeting, there are still some outstanding issues
which we agreed to bring it back to the mailing list to discuss.

First, the issue of nameprep. nameprep have been renamed to stringprep
and the new draft is available few days ago. Please review
draft-ietf-idn-nameprep-06.txt.

And related to nameprep are the jpchar, hanguelchar and tsconv drafts.
The authors should get together to consider an architecture document.
We should set a deadline for this to be concluded, probably sometime
before Salt Lake meeting.

This architecture document should take into consideration of:
a. the recommendation from the Unicode Consortium to the WG dated 02Sept
b. the source and stablity of the referenced work/codepoints

(Personally, I would strongly recommend that nameprep remains as it is
and the rest of the "localization" to be deal at a different level,
either at the input method or below at the zone file.)

Secondly, there is a reordering draft draft-ietf-idn-lsb-ace. We have
already seen some results on reordering but we have not seen much
discussion on the downside of reordering. In anycase, we would like
to encourage further discussion on reordering draft as we would like
to conduct a strawpoll on the draft soon.

Thirdly, we have seen a strong number of people who is against UNAME and
UDNS. Therefore, we will be removing UNAME and UDNS from the WG Pool in
the next few days. Please take note that this does not prevent someone
from coming forward with another proposal.

The wg chairs have also receive several request to make updates on the
goal & milestone of the charter to reflect the current wg position. We
will send out a first draft for comments very shortly.

Some other wg matters:

As agreed in London meeting, the requirements draft will be moving
forward for IETF Last Call.

Based on the hum in London, the chairs also believe we have consensus
on AMC-ACE-Z (draft-ietf-idn-amc-ace-z) as the choosen ACE. We feel
a wg last call would provide no further information for the chairs to
determine consensus since most people are in the "don't care but just
want to see one ACE choosen" group. We will move AMC-ACE-Z forward to
the IESG at an appropriate time.

(minor note: we also agree that we should look for another name for
AMC-Z but I think that discussion have already started :-)

A prefix for AMC-Z will be assigned using the normal IESG/IANA/
RFC-editor procedure for coordinating assignment of protocol
parameters during IETF last call and publication as an RFC.

Given this, we would like to advise people to start doing
interoperability testing on their implementation of AMC-Z.

For you information and comments.

James Seng
co-chair IDN wg