[I18nrp] Appropriate status for draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

In a recent message, John Klensin said:

> Because (if nothing else) the document follows up on RFC 6452, which was
Standards Track, and because the directorate should have a chance to come
together and review this document and its relationship to other pending
work, the Last Call has now been cancelled (or, I hope more accurately,
deferred).


I agree that RFC 6452 was Standards Track, but I disagree that this implies
this document must be.

RFC 5892 has the following statement in its IANA considerations:

   If non-backward-compatible changes or other problems arise during the
creation or designated expert review of the table of derived property
values, they should be flagged for the IESG.  Changes to the rules  (as
specified in Sections 2 and 3), including BackwardCompatible (Section 2.7)
(a set that is at release of this document is empty) require IETF Review,
as described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].

While there are not changes to the rule RFC 6452 has at least one character
that might be read to warrant broader IETF review:

1.3.  U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE

   The GeneralCategory for this character changes from Nd to No.  This
implies that the derived property value changes from PVALID to DISALLOWED.

This does not occur in this document, nor do any of the conditions that
require more than a notification off the issue to the IESG.  Patrik has
chosen to solicit advice from the community by publishing this thoughts on
this, to confirm that there are no issues that he missed.  But ultimately
the result of that is an informational document on the expert's opinion
after the review he solicited as expert.

We have clear ways to require the publication of RFCs or of requiring
standards before making changes, and those are not required in this case.
If you desire to make them required, I believe you must write a document
that proposes that change, and then seek consensus for it.

I agree with you, however, that the oddity of having one informational and
one standards track might be worth remedying.  The simplest way to do that,
though, would be to mark 6452 as historic.  I am happy to write a short
draft to that end, if you agree.

regards,

Ted Hardie