Re: [I18ndir] Directorate procedural question (was: Re: draft-faltstrom-unicode11-07)

["Alexey Melnikov" <[e-mail]>]

John/Pete,

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> The ART ADs (who are monitoring this list and will hopefully notice 
> this) are in a better position to answer this query, but from my 
> perspective:
> 
> This list is likely to have a more in-depth discussion of the document 
> than any more general LC discussion on the main IETF list. I think it is 
> more valuable to have your input here.

Agreed.

> I also expect the ART ADs at the very least to take the input of this 
> review very seriously, and I expect the sponsoring AD of this document 
> would be unlikely to let issues raised by this review to go unaddressed.

Indeed, ART ADs will be watching both mailing lists. At the moment I don't see any email on [e-mail] other than the one from Suzanne Woolf.

Best Regards,
Alexey

> pr
> 
> On 16 Feb 2019, at 15:03, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > In addition to the issues identified below (on which, AFAICT,
> > only the two of you and Asmus have commented in the week and a
> > half since it was posted), I note that the Last Call on the I-D
> > has been issued and discussion (albeit limited) has started on
> > the IETF list.   I have every confidence in Harald's ability to
> > write a good summary but, if it written in the usual style of
> > directorate-as-review-team documents, I'd expect that at least
> > some IESG members who would prefer to not be bothered by these
> > issues would more or less ignore it.
> >
> > I don't have time -- and I assume few others on this list have
> > time -- to participate in parallel discussions on the two lists
> > (this one and the IETF one).  I also believe that reasoned
> > comments on the IETF list that disagree with the conclusions of
> > some of us should be responded to there so that their authors
> > (as well as the whole IESG) see the responses and might even be
> > educated by whatever discussion follows.  So I now have a
> > dilemma as to whether to keep reading and responding here or to
> > put this list aside and start paying attention to the IETF one.
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
> >    john
> >
> >
> >
> > --On Thursday, February 14, 2019 19:52 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/14/19 8:52 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> >>
> >>> I do want to point you and everyone at John's review
> >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18ndir/vFddEKMIN0DR55Q
> >>> ALal16H_1WYw to see if you have any comments on it. In
> >>> particular:
> >>>
> >>> |TL;DR summary of this note: It is extremely unwise for the
> >>> IETF to process draft-faltstrom-unicode11-07 before a number
> >>> of other issues (and associated documents) are carefully
> >>> considered and resolved.|
> >>
> >> I think John raises valid concerns, which I understand as:
> >>
> >> 1. We really do need to figure out what to do about the issues
> >> described in draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70,
> >> draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis, and
> >> draft-freytag-troublesome-characters.
> >>
> >> 2. Advancing draft-faltstrom-unicode11 as-is could be
> >> perceived as ignoring those issues.
> >>
> >> 3. We now have a proper venue in which to address those
> >> issues, so perhaps we should give ourselves a chance to
> >> succeed.
> >>
> >> 4. At the least, we might want to include more explicit
> >> warnings in draft-faltstrom-unicode11 about the risks of
> >> allowing "troublesome" characters.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
> 
> -- 
> I18ndir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18ndir
>