[I18ndir] I18NDir and draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Hi.

I have just responded (with two notes) to a Last Call comment on
the IETF list about draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11,
a document I had not looked at previously (largely because I've
given up on free consulting for registries, at least unless
issues are explicitly called to my attention or personal favors
are called in).   My review of the document raises some
procedural and descriptive issues (which, having identified
them, I'll happily leave to the IESG) but also at least two
substantive IDN ones: use of "variant" and "strict bundling" in
critical, defining, contexts without a definition of either. 

Given its quite obvious IDNA implications, I am surprised that
there was no evident attempt to pass it by the i18n directorate.
The IETF Last Call apparently ended in March, which, IIR, was
after the directorate was organized add chartered, and it on on
the IESG agenda for 17 October, so there should have been lots
of time.  

Having been involved (as author, editor, or major contributor)
with all or most of the I18n documents this one mentions and
having gotten very sensitive to "variant" questions and IETF
involvement in them, I almost certainly would have made a
careful pass through it if the document was called to my
attention by the authors, the directorate, or the ART ADs.  It
wasn't.

Would others have noticed these issues if the draft had been
called to the attention of the directorate?  I don't know.  The
fact that they were not detected in the apparently-extensive
discussions in the REGEXT WG either does not speak highly of
that group or identifies the need for a directorate or review
team in the I18N area.

Does the failure to call this document to the attention of the
directorate indicate that we have given up on that idea, at
least in its present form?  If not, is there another explanation
that people are prepared to share with the directorate list and,
if appropriate, with the IETF?

     john