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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 10 August 2019 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 2E53012001B; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 VZ_LI-OcC478; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01D3512001A; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465Qhq6YF4zXf5D; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1565450267; bh=10hNzCHocyVx42z8+wHan8fbpAknjYpkSqOFHgPPUuU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ftEb9YB20kUpIOZSMO3SrRpqfM1v6vcVSjpobzg5YDakKplKNe32s4BKCwK0sylUI 99YnizT92gCh+AtlfO2nv8bTaYXKa86w0BwXx4tGtQSO2tL6TvIHEEsT0LE7hWtzKY B/SyxSnM9nNeLhdcfUZ7FhdH7nFYVGVydoqkVCpQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from [172.20.7.244] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 465Qhp6wMDzKmlD; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review.all@ietf.org
References: <156531739418.7646.9953192452578973587@ietfa.amsl.com> <5BADE9FB3D5D19459C9F2EAB@PSB>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <4496fb88-f8e8-17dd-2d10-14be4f3cf0bc@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:17:43 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5BADE9FB3D5D19459C9F2EAB@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/wStFrOpPBY-75kwqijhj9HPLNxo>
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: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 15:17:50 -0000

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
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>