I will speak my personal opinion on these sets:
(1) draft-ietf-822ext-mnemonics-03.txt "proposed standard"
(2) draft-ietf-822ext-charsets-04.txt "informational document"
There is also an implicit point (3) and (4) here:
(3) allow registration of "mnemonic" as a charset with IANA
(4) include "mnemonic" in the next MIME standard version
As far as I can see, the reason for (1) being "proposed standards" is
mainly to get to target (4). I certainly hope that the IANA (whoever he is)
will not refuse to register anything that is not a "proposed standard RFC".
In my other work (on MIME gateway to X.400 and charsets in X.400), I have
found Keld's "charsets" document very useful. In fact, I need to quote it.
So, I definitely think that (2) is a correct action.
I see no big opposition to this, except for the question of whether Keld
has typed everything correctly; I have not yet found any problem.
I think that (4) (getting Mnemonic into the MIME document) is probably
not possible to get consensus on.
So what status we need for (1) is dependent on what we need to do to get
a registered character set. When EUNET and NORDUNET can show heavy usage
of it, in preference to ISO-8859-X, it becomes simple to ask for an Internet
"standard" status for it, but I think that at the moment, it should be
left as an "experimental standard", rather than wrangling for 6 months
over whether it should be "proposed standard" or not.
As with MIME, I think that it is more important to get it published, fixed
and referencable, than it is to cross the last T and dot the last I.
(Quick question, now: Does a small dotless I become identical to a large
version of the dotted I, when both are converted to uppercase? :-)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
The man with a thousand hats,
but speaking for none of them