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

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

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.