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

Asmus Freytag <> Thu, 06 December 2018 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76890131159; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:53:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key); domainkeys=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id janJZbm2qVAP; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:53:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043BB131141; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:53:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dk12062016; t=1544118825; bh=E+abGW0QYYeH6J0EvCkXbXCKPqFvuQOs+14G eN1GA68=; h=Received:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date: User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Language: X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; b=i1DVHqsm4XuLQ82eekVCqQtzFJH2Mr7Xs r8BqktskFfIGK5N2hcyb+Zz9gp32WKmFmZ+D00mvCcEVuii19CO9P2JC6IapI+xhXEz ilCwK2EuFkVnCHmmfeO/N2fvQPkCcP/p8mZ0SPOmgw09knmnJXVg2nWacBKZjb0LGKj KlbqrNbt3mJzsl6JTZdtLWWXHyvafMQKI9wbaWO2+PHsLC9WS+4KTxQwp7pucdNyuf9 AnH203qeekbtfdP+CZwQaNuwytl8gjEtuOGY4ZzhL3Yyr+eofYE6BvBru1LOkaNWysO Ua9GeGl+kPF80ihtLSsQ4hB2xlRGFmIqCif2YGr4w==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk12062016;; b=gWTtMj0iyZNSCrh1oYzVLE2ZPQRtlN1FxBY4JoiTBwP9wMFXZh7InY0b8Pr2+QF0moTfUXFDkdoq2k3a+t2cLWK4uB8sl1Bqs/Mh417Oho1ZFOTQqCMcmJLtZO69kAu95aZp37Zx4KaR54fvzdC7xyJA8KIYg0IN0dJ4wS9J+jgWaclhUjJLS7P4pwbIf/E+8Xe/OfDacIem1Hfn+6TMFdsigaXBbRWSoJpcC8EJcPfkUbUuYGZJ5KDRP/y4fsE8LiTL6keadTBqRr+1w4orwy7q1vAdQlmgqJ1f+UJiIeD6deJVesvZW0zNPha1yS9DTE3D7M7WE/I63BcXUmfoKw==; h=Received:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Language:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4) (envelope-from <>) id 1gUxqH-0002hb-Us; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:53:42 -0500
To: John C Klensin <>, Ted Hardie <>
Cc:,, SM <>
References: <FF58A82A9FC582B643CD76B4@PSB> <> <DECE7E7897CB1D5C5D548886@PSB> <> <742AF7DA8806227F4BDD3BA8@PSB>
From: Asmus Freytag <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:53:45 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <742AF7DA8806227F4BDD3BA8@PSB>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------907CCA8E3B4AF1AEB18463F1"
Content-Language: en-US
X-ELNK-Trace: 464f085de979d7246f36dc87813833b28d93432b0f0788b9a87c8e57057ee93a9f4acb8a53f14868350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 17:53:49 -0000

What John writes below seems to be a workable model.

In practical terms, associate the <whatever> with a single mailing list
where all advice is posted (and all requests for input can be made)
and you have the transparency and educational benefits that is so
relevant in an issue like i18n. (I18n is always a bit special because
it runs across other specifications while rarely being central - IDNA
being an obvious exception).

In my experience, with i18n, there is often a very definite "doing
it this way will not work for these cases" type of review result as
opposed to a "this is the one way to do it". In other words, there
is a definite interplay with whoever is writing a specification.


On 12/6/2018 12:23 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Ted,
> I'm not sure whether we disagree or not.   So let me try a
> shorter comment that gets to the bottom line.
> (1) This <whatever> is going to be required to advise the ART
> ADs and, at their option, the IESG and/or the broader community,
> on i18n strategic questions.  There is no requirement on anyone
> to take their advice and the membership is presumably recruited,
> appointed, and serves at the pleasure of the ART ADs.
> (2) This <whatever> is, as Marc pointed out about PRECIS, going
> to get requests for help with profiles and the like.  Some of
> those requests may come from outside the ART Area.  Again, there
> is no requirement on anyone to take the advice that results
> although I would certainly hope that the community and the IESG
> would look on departures from it (or a deliberate effort to
> avoid asking) with some skepticism.   That is similar to, but at
> least initially with far less nominal authority than or various
> Doctor teams. For example, I'm not anticipating an
> entry/question in Shepherd templates although that would clearly
> be up to the IESG.
> (3) I am imagine interactions between the <whatever> or its
> members and the EDU team about needed and useful training
> activities and how to staff them.  Such questions would
> presumably be under the supervision of the ART ADs in addition
> to the overall supervision of the EDU team by the IESG.   I
> don't see anything different or problematic there and, again, no
> one would be obligated to take the <whatever>'s advice.
> (4) At their discretion, the ART ADs could cut the <whatever>
> out of the loop entirely on a particular document.   I'd expect
> at least some of the members of that group to respond badly,
> either resigning, complaining loudly that the ART ADs were
> deliberately excluding input and then providing that input as
> individuals during IETF Last Call, or both, but I don't imagine
> the existence of the <whatever) would create, e.g., any appeal
> rights that do not exist today.
> (5) Strategic advice that the <whatever> might offer the ART
> ADs, or at their discretion, publicly to the community, might be
> similar to (whether consistent or not) advice that might
> ordinarily, at at its discretion, come from the IAB.  That is,
> AFAICT, no different from other directorates (or for that
> matter, individuals) offering strategic advice -- insofar as the
> IAB advice should get priority over that of others, it should be
> because of the quality of thinking and explanation it reflects,
> not because it comes _From The IAB_ or the pixie dust that is
> sprinkled over it every March.   More generally, not only are
> the ART ADs (or the IESG more broadly) not required to
> prioritize advice from the <whatever> over advice from the IAB
> (or vice versa), they are not required to accept either and
> neither the <whatever> nor the IAB have any specific rights in
> that matter.
> Now, if we had a huge supply of expertise, I could see some very
> strong arguments, starting with just sharing the load, for
> trying to parse those functions into separate bodies/ teams.
> But we don't have such a supply -- if we did and things were
> working well in traditional ways, there never would have been a
> BOF, the non-decomposing character issue would have been
> addressed a couple of years ago rather than being turned into an
> IAB statement that arguably added to the confusion,
> draft-faltstrom-unicode11 would not be trying to address four
> versions of Unicode at once, and so on.  So, do you have a
> suggestion -- preferably one that has not already been tried and
> been abandoned and does not involve Command Action or
> Proclamation -- for solving the problem of being unable to
> progress i18n documents, especially those that are intrinsically
> interrelated whether they say so or not?
>       john
> --On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 14:55 -0800 Ted Hardie
> <>; wrote:
>> John,
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:02 PM John C Klensin
>> <>; wrote:
>>> --On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 19:30 -0800 S Moonesamy
>>> <>; wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> To a considerable extent, it is a cross between a working
>>> group, a directorate, and a review team.   See my recent long
>>> note.
>> There are critical differences in membership among these
>> three.  In the case of a working group, all IETF working
>> groups are open to all comers. Generally, review teams are
>> closed but have their work evaluated by an open group,  and
>> they may be self-organized as well as assigned by chairs or
>> ADs.    Directorates serve at the pleasure of specific ADs.
>> The accountability models in each of these is quite different
>> as a result of the different membership models.
>> If I understand correctly from conversations with them since
>> yesterday, the ADs are constituting a directorate and
>> associating that membership model and that accountability
>> model with the effort.  That's clear, and I'm fine with it.
>> Continuing to say it is a cross between or among other models
>> makes me concerned again, though, that there is some
>> mis-communication going on.
>>>>   I gather that directorate is not an exact fit if
>>>> it operates as a review team.
>>> But this is where we go into either a rathole or a procedural
>>> swamp that wastes time and frustrates some of the relevant
>>> experts into deciding to spend their time in other ways.
>>> Certainly, if they wanted to, the ART ADs could propose
>>> setting up three (in the extreme case) separate groups, a
>>> directorate to advise them on i18n strategy, a review team to
>>> evaluate both in-area and out-of-area (but primarily
>>> out-of-area) documents with i18n topics or impacts, and a WG
>>> to generate new i18n work and process documents.  They could
>>> then consider the fairly small number of experts available
>>> (both by knowledge and ability and willingness to commit) to
>>> populate such groups and do i18n work and respond by (at
>>> least mostly) appointing the same people to the first two
>>> groups and encourage them to join/participate in the third.
>>> If only because of a shortage of volunteers, they might even
>>> appoint the same chairs/coordinators for all three.  Then
>>> they could figure out a way to make it clear which hat people
>>> were wearing when they said something and be prepared for
>>> complaints (or even appeals) when it wasn't sufficiently
>>> clear.
>>> Seems to me like a huge opportunity to waste time, spend
>>> energy on procedures that would be better spent on
>>> substantive work, and drive experts away from participation
>>> and the IETF and that it would have absolutely no advantages
>>> other than impressive ritual correctness.   YMMD.
>> While I generally like a good ritual (it's that background as
>> an anthropologist), I cannot agree that something that touches
>> on the accountability model is uselessly procedural. As I am
>> sure you are aware, some of the issues in this area have both
>> large sums of money and large-scale political implications at
>> stake; being able to describe exactly the scope of the power
>> allotted to a group and from whom is one way of avoiding
>> expensive confusion later on.
>>> A directorate review cannot block a draft.
>>> Of course not.  Nor can a review team review or, by itself, a
>>> WG decision to not proceed with a draft.   An AD could take
>>> input from any of them and use it to block a draft or could
>>> proceed anyway (in the WG case by changing WG leadership,
>>> spinning up a separate WG, or handle the draft as an
>>> individual submission). Do you see enough difference there to
>>> justify quibbling over what this is called or creating new
>>> and elaborate procedures?  I don't but, again, YMMD.
>>>>   As Ted pointed out, it would be up to the Area
>>>> Director to take the decision on whether to "block" a draft.
>>> Exactly.   And that decision would be subject to pushback from
>>> other ADs in the Area, the full IESG, and to potential
>>> appeals. We have lots of protection against abuse against
>>> unreasonable blocking behavior... by anyone or any group.
>>> If we are clear that the model is that of a directorate and
>>> that the ADs
>> are the ones responsible, I agree.  In an open working group,
>> the mode by which one pushes back on a decision is very
>> different, though, which is part of why I continue to be
>> concerned at descriptions that make this a cross between or
>> among models.
>> regards,
>> Ted
>>>      john
> _______________________________________________
> IDNA-UPDATE mailing list