IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 05 December 2018 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 E578D130E18 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 07:50:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=VQ9w9KDE; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=HDJewEWC
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 KnutdMjeInl9 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 07:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB165130E29 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 07:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03376C00AA for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 15:50:29 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1544025029; bh=ngUJjexIqUIet1Tz6Z+CMsie5CSMTn36Z4+QqhPVwIo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VQ9w9KDEDyzKFwruBZHqEh3DggKCpVXWYrPK9jgetC1boj5WIyXQTVLwsSKqC9/o4 JX3HzWq8hiBKh3NGAOEUXwmKOej1tncGQyhK+BtsyxE3QVFUzrEG5LZ2a+BMbFkoN7 4eIl+3fUnDilclYtvVn+gtzhrdJyu0MHdDpUVH1A=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PYrgjgejUmOs for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 15:50:27 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:50:25 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1544025027; bh=ngUJjexIqUIet1Tz6Z+CMsie5CSMTn36Z4+QqhPVwIo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HDJewEWCVsy5mbwsLnh5kh1QHIYMok15v9aMbUWchhqNNP8O8ZERAorKBDUIgloOG zt/Iz0/DSS13jpAfau9VVJ3FOXvWsB/jtBFMJ5M7ufhrA7RxshF8TooxB9+xSNeQ4/ kAEwm8cOgiF5RK5/eibcIWjelPu9hJSnQt23lkhE=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: i18nrp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181205155025.35bpnwne3tqw6i7h@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <FF58A82A9FC582B643CD76B4@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20181204185928.1085a3d0@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204185928.1085a3d0@elandnews.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/i8OnBeHp4iEJO-3VgjNi0191kf8>
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 15:50:33 -0000

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:30:39PM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 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.

But of course, an AD could block a draft on the grounds that s/he
doesn't have enough information yet because s/he didn't have a
directorate yet that was sufficient to provide needed advice on
whether a document can proceed.  I don't see any reason why that would
be problematic, and I see lots of reasons why this process-lawyering
is.  People are trying to do the right thing, using the resources they
have, in a way to minimise thrash around this topic, and attempting to
make the process work one way or the other by insisting on
rule-following is, I submit, quite likely to make things worse.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email