Re: [I18ndir] I-D on filesystem I18N

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 05:13:22PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> What I'm concerned about -- and what caused that question about
> priorities -- is, at an even higher level, the sort of issue
> covered by the note I just sent in response to Patrik's.  With
> one qualification below (which I predict you won't like), if the
> IESG (via IETF LC), a WG, an AD, or maybe an individual author
> who is proposing an update in line with documents that have
> already achieved IETF consensus requests a review _from the
> directorate_, and Pete assigns that review to someone and they
> do it, then that is great.  
> 
> The qualification is that, if the review was requested from the
> directorate about a document that has been written consistent
> with established IETF consensus documents _and_ that does not
> reopen or contradict the questions that were presumed to be
> settled by that consensus, then that review ought to respond to
> the i18n issues raised by the document and suggest issues with
> them, not say "well, the whole concept of which the spec under
> review is a {proposed) part is broken and I have a better idea".
> Should the latter occur, I believe that, if we are really
> functioning as a directorate, a second reviewer should
> immediately be recruited and assigned to provide the review that
> was requested.

Yours is an argument for stare decisis.  Once wrong, always wrong.  As
if consensus, once found, can never change.

I reject that argument, at least as to our documents.

It seems, too, like you're conceding that our approach to NFSv4 I18N was
wrong, but you want to keep that old concensus untouched.  Of course, I
welcome your concession even as I reject your argument that we must
never revisit consensus findings.

> I'm not interested in reviews in the same sense that we are
> reviewing external documents.  I'm interested in efforts closer
> to what went into the discussions of draft-faltstrom-unicode11
> (and 12) over a year ago, the discussions that resulted in both
> RFC 8754 and the update of the IANA tables.  I think those are
> fundamentally different from reviews of more external documents.

It sounds like you want us to act more like a WG and publish RFCs --
except below you say otherwise.  That seems like a contradiction, unless
you expect us to use the ISE for all our documents.  But a group that
relies on the ISE stream for publication of its documents seems like a
prime candidate for a WG, else it seems like an end-run around IETF
process that other groups have to go through.

> > As to self-organization, I don't mind trading a review of some
> > of the above-mentioned I-Ds if that's what it takes to get
> > more review of mine.
> 
> If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that your
> ideas about an i18n filesystem is sufficiently important that it
> justifies pushing existing core i18n specifications, including
> the reviews of Unicode 13 (and, to some extent, 12) required by
> RFC 8753 aside so we can all work on your document.  I

How do you draw such a conclusion from what I wrote?  How would trading
reviews cause my work to push others' aside?  How would my bringing my
energy to help progress the documents you are interested in somehow push
them aside?  Are you... taking my I-D as an affront?  That's how your
responses are starting to come across to me.  I'm baffled.

> respectfully disagree and suggest that -- or essentially turning
> the directorate into a WG or design team specific to your
> document and ideas -- is not a good idea.  I assume we will just
> need to agree to disagree about that.

We don't have to agree to disagree.  As you well know, we have a
mechanism for making decisions.  Expect a BoF proposal from me for IETF
109 so that we can make a decision about whether we shall have an I18N
WG.

Nico
--