Re: [I18ndir] I18ndir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-06

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 12:45 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [I18ndir] I18ndir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-
> dnrd-objects-mapping-06
> 
> Scott,
> 
> But that takes us full circle and into a set of problems that are not I18N issues
> are all.
> 
> Given the number of times we have actually had:
>  (1) A registry go out of business or been forced out by
> 	ICANN, and
>  (2) The registry replaced by another one, and
>  (3) These files used to populate the files for the new
> 	registry.
> 
> .... It is hard to argue that there has been extensive operational experience
> (and so I appreciate your use of "supposedly".
> 
> And, while ICANN has run some tests to simulate such actions, there have
> been, as you presumably, considerable suspicion that there tests have been
> somewhat perfunctory.  Again, "supposedly".
> 
> In addition, if the only entities who care about this data format and
> supporting protocols are ICANN, ICANN Contracted Parties, and other
> ICANN-dependent entities, it takes us back to my long-term concern about
> the REGEXT work and its boundaries:
> if the real criteria for efforts like this document are that it works for ICANN
> (however ICANN defines "works") then what is the value of having the IETF
> involved?  Clearly, the work gets better, and broader, review than ICANN
> could get without spending money on expert reviewers and probably
> authors.  But, despite occasional claims to the contrary, ICANN is not in a
> state of poverty in which it could not afford those efforts if
> they considered them important.
> 
> >From an IETF standpoint, volunteer time that goes into this sort
> of effort is time that is taken away from things that are arguably more critical.
> As a very specific pair of examples, this directorate has a core IDNA
> document in AUTH48, draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review, that I haven't been
> able to spend time on in the last few days because Marc's review had to be
> prioritized so that any necessary revisions could get into the LC process
> before the, IIR, 9 March cutoff.  not clear to me that is the right optimization
> for IETF or the Internet.

I can't disagree with anything you wrote above, John. From a practical perspective, we should wrap up the review that Marc was requested to provide and move on to more important topics.

Scott