Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 18 September 2019 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677B5120BEA; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=Ks1H1rjD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=KVfCJDxG
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tBk2fjHW4CwU; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B297120BE8; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6EA21E29; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:36:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:36:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=fm1; bh=gh8wcOt0X5i1PtiOFROC2RA p0uJuAEfO2Aa+xeLnaMI=; b=Ks1H1rjDWFpepMlHzo6FeQoJEBVhu04DsUBj4pW hrPswR8UGGADiDbk45GZmmgf4nl6PWWgNUcnVYn1FccGQ/wfeygVJVOowcGOW+QP Z8zXFS9MaQ6RifUtKiLuX0tlu778l2J7nyF5IIbHkilqrW8ijKe13uNr+0K4cf+A Fc/Ix9DlOSRMXFS3gfhU7HbuU3abv9+YmB7GmTjQfo9LSyAprqaxAdDbG73/1wW+ GWwT7qF7V1Htbm4oq6ga2Ih85c7JmjZIOnZelDjxb+W8JmxwDofeCqetAaHscEUj fR4Jpa2NUrfYkToHQDoXAxgep6Gw8W4MvPyu2KX9OXpYaEg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=gh8wcO t0X5i1PtiOFROC2RAp0uJuAEfO2Aa+xeLnaMI=; b=KVfCJDxGZKn6R+k71re1/+ z6B0Bk6OkCzFnAHv7j2zdDnVECnAsmgXostNMH/IoJcWsLzw++eHijFYWzb/ESOV smSGQV9lm1q0iTAi4n/k5+DACS84BAPXiLxwqkdDu+zwXsZ5H2MUbtqyasPwLTaB mDot9zVYtN+dsJo2WoKRfL2vof68Li47gJVmCafDb1chmfipr1vV/+CdaWvVx1cq PSIfzmr7YGykJ/slfSSpS902B382LquSD2YbqEiwVeFYomB4zyWb1r6s57/I7ClC 9XCTwf1tKWvfxdmnbOv5sULeKH68k56zG0M/JU05PYXyE4yegRb1D7ALZC+JnvqQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:LoeCXVqojrordY5TINEEg6V6dYQrzTfgyA-iEy6cNnNywocWS2MRPQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudekgddugedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhkfgtggfuffgjvfhfofesrgdtmh erhhdtvdenucfhrhhomheptehlihhsshgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestgho ohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppedujeefrd efkedruddujedrleefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhishhsrgestgho ohhpvghrfidrihhnnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:LoeCXb5_G3oibaPC0ZDWnZEBrOp60sB9sKoRprcm8raItNbiirsGQg> <xmx:LoeCXdMETftGA3y75g4Ct97AtMHq2f7ymIqaQqBTC0yg3FBf5i8_Gw> <xmx:LoeCXVOpo618LU6N6E-NObkvKNd7eQw8dtukCLh1gcmJNx4YDdPIGQ> <xmx:LoeCXbJav2scG2wJzFFUBrIMnQOKYaZ6RPWjfsWN3hoCAEXbro3jXA>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.93]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 929C4D6005E; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:36:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-Id: <A282AC95-6788-4F8F-9CED-3A34FF31E572@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_886F39E4-2E64-4581-AAA2-2C8F5F872302"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:36:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4496fb88-f8e8-17dd-2d10-14be4f3cf0bc@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review.all@ietf.org
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <156531739418.7646.9953192452578973587@ietfa.amsl.com> <5BADE9FB3D5D19459C9F2EAB@PSB> <4496fb88-f8e8-17dd-2d10-14be4f3cf0bc@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/EMt7tJ87ULeSSyAjIMCjh5ZZXwA>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:36:17 -0000

Joel, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to chat about the review team.

Alissa


> On Aug 10, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> No problem on the time.  I appreciated Barry's ack.
> Further on your response below.
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 8/10/2019 2:13 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Joel,
>> My apologies for not being able to respond to this sooner.  I've
>> been preoccupied for the last couple of days with some non-IETF
>> matters.  Inline below.
>> --On Thursday, August 8, 2019 19:23 -0700 Joel Halpern via
>> Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>>> 
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General
>>> Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being
>>> processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these
>>> comments just like any other last call comments.
>>> 
>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>> 
>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02
>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>> Review Date: 2019-08-08
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-30
>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>> 
>>> Summary: THis document is ready for publication as a Proposed
>>> Standard
>>> 
>>>     This reviewer found the document quite readable and clear
>>> about what it was     doing (with one minor issue noted
>>> below.)  The reviewer does not have the     background to
>>> evaluate whether the technical substance is correct or
>>> incorrect, and leaves that to the community review.  The
>>> document is quite     persuasive.
>>> 
>>> Major issues: N/A
>> Thanks for what was obviously a careful reading.
>>> Minor issues:
>>>     I would like to see a little more explicit text in section
>>> 3.2.  It was not     until I reached the IANA considerations
>>> (section 8) that I realized that     section 3.2 intended to
>>> mandate that the IESG create and where applicable     use a
>>> broad review team for the new code point review.  I think a
>>> sentence     or so along the lines of "Creation of this team
>>> when needed is a new     responsibility placed on the IESG by
>>> this document." would have helped.
>> While I don't think that text (or something like it) would be
>> harmful and will happily include it in the I-D if Barry and the
>> IESG think it would help, you have, from my standpoint,
>> uncovered the elephant in the room.  It may be a mean-tempered
>> elephant.
>> The difficulty with i18n work is that it requires people to work
>> together to combine the perspectives of multiple specialties.
>> Of course, the same could be said for routing or security, but
>> most of the relevant specialties are part of, or align well
>> with, expertise that are moderately common in, or that seem to
>> fit  well with, the IETF.   With i18n, many are not and they
>> rarely appear, all together, in on person.   So competent review
>> of just about anything in internationalization in the IETF
>> requires a team.  The IESG has known that since 2003 or earlier
>> and took on the responsibility then.   When we've appointed a
>> single Designated Expert, it has almost always been someone who
>> is expected to reach out to others, collect opinions, and then
>> synthesize a result (again, really not so different from many
>> other topic areas).  So, really, this I-D is not changing much
>> of anything in terms of what was expected, it is just being a
>> tad more explicit about it.
>> In addition, I predict that it will be fairly rare for the IESG
>> to have sufficient internal expertise and contacts to recruit
>> and select an entire team with the right mix of skills.
>> Remember that, because some of the skills are uncommon in the
>> IETF, a note to the IETF list or former WG lists asking for
>> volunteers may not be productive.  Certainly IESGs with the full
>> range of needed knowledge have not been common in the last
>> decade or so.  So I'd predict that a sensible IESG would pick
>> one or two people, ask them to recruit a team, and then bring
>> the list of team members back to the IESG for a sanity check.
>> It is probably not a coincidence that almost that model was used
>> by the ART ADs to set up the i18n Directorate, nor, if the
>> Directorate continues, would it surprise me if "the team" turned
>> out to be the Directorate or a selected subset of it.
>> If we are going to make the language more precise as you
>> suggest, we need to do it so as to not constrain the IESG's
>> ability to pick any of those options that makes sense in a given
>> year.
> 
> While one can argue that the meaning you want is implicit in the current text, I do not think most readers will get it.  And thus and IESG without your context might easily not get it either.  Would the following three sentences work?
>    This document makes more explicit the IESG responsibility to ensure
>    a proper review team for the new code point review.  As that team
>    needs a broad range of skills, the IESG may use a range of
>    strategies to populate the team.   In particular, the IESG may
>    select an individual to do the work of proposing a sufficiently
>    broad team for the review, and then empower that team.
> 
>> best,
>>    john
>>> 
>>> Nits/editorial comments: N/A
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>