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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Do I understand correctly that Harald plans to send a summary of any conclusions?

Thanks,

Ben.

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> --
> I18ndir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18ndir