IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [Idna-update] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 05 December 2018 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6788130DDE for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:31:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=JcxnBZZ1; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=RmSBt2Mb
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cSRks_ZQFtli for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:31:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40CF130DD2 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:31:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.224.151.231]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id wB53VhfO021258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:31:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1543980715; x=1544067115; bh=mZfV9ROfYp1itXN3IPmbj5EUqiCyOWLN5PHTXzAsBkU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=JcxnBZZ1/dIX+4S1BI6EyPrlkPXFy95x8ZLxYHRLZOgX9xW9WyZSyqwV2EaPfxc0U OAxdGIeuvRxcZgJExhAWwsp2neD9BRw4k3lgNgdQuACpilBJn6vGY0r2Cc/6p8CELE edG5JcgB6FiiR+k8/7ZAqeXzoeOv7lE227CPEBjQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1543980715; x=1544067115; i=@elandsys.com; bh=mZfV9ROfYp1itXN3IPmbj5EUqiCyOWLN5PHTXzAsBkU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RmSBt2MbzZImHDmk7+E+85HT/mjiZlRsJ6HY01zz9nUWqlStoiPgEaWZ0DFQb79It fzJVmUu7l8K8jXF93eIRT5s3ke2jSS/SVzrJo35fMH+CnfpQuFuYi3jotMn2yrjTj2 yx5hK9CjwU2RYjdFmBX50/nxkDC1ZQ4MNIMT/QR0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204185928.1085a3d0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:30:39 -0800
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, i18nrp@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FF58A82A9FC582B643CD76B4@PSB>
References: <FF58A82A9FC582B643CD76B4@PSB>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/W9snthTsHSsT8HADPhVtePo-FRw>
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [Idna-update] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
X-BeenThere: i18nrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Review Procedures <i18nrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18nrp/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18nrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 03:31:59 -0000

Hi John,
At 01:56 PM 04-12-2018, John C Klensin wrote:
>As the last part of the note below will make obvious (I was
>planning on noting it to this list separately) I decided to
>summarize what I believe the discussion was about to the
>IDNA-update, EAI, PRECIS, and IAB i18n-discuss lists to lower
>the odds that someone who should be participating in the
>discussion is accidentally left out of the loop.

The proposal sounds like a cross between a working group and a 
directorate.  I gather that directorate is not an exact fit if it 
operates as a review team.  A directorate review cannot block a 
draft.  As Ted pointed out, it would be up to the Area Director to 
take the decision on whether to "block" a draft.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email