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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 13 October 2019 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C494D120024; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1zH5GEGEWXM; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 12:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35352120013; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1iJjm9-0007VX-H1; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:43:33 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:43:28 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: art-ads@ietf.org, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
cc: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration.all@ietf.org, i18ndir@ietf.org
Message-ID: <9F9605E94A8996F4F8B80822@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18ndir/Gnd_i0iO7E7Hu1u8YNg3h-5OEe0>
Subject: [I18ndir] I18NDir and draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11
X-BeenThere: i18ndir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Directorate <i18ndir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18ndir/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18ndir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 19:43:40 -0000


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

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?