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

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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