Re: [Idna-update] [art] Comments on draft-faltstrom-unicode11-02

[Asmus Freytag <[e-mail]>]

On 10/8/2018 12:58 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, October 8, 2018 09:06 -0700 Ted Hardie
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Modulo Erik's comments, I think this is ready for publication.
>> The instructions to IANA are clear and the rationale behind
>> those instructions is laid out.
>>
>> I think we could ask for AD-sponsorship for this, but I also
>> believe that the instructions could go to IANA now; at the
>> very least, we could ask them to review.
> Ted,
>
> I'm sorry, but I disagree.  Patrik has, as far as I can tell,
> done the job that the IAB asked him to do in his liaison
> capacity to Unicode,

I thought this draft was in Patrik's role as the designated expert for 
the IANA registry.

> but that job involves a number of
> assumptions about how to proceed that interact with i18n
> documents that the IETF has been unable to process.  If we
> follow the precedent of RFC 6452, this document should be
> processed as standards track even if it changes nothing.

The relevant difference is that RFC 6452 contained this section:

-------------------

IETF Consensus

    No change to RFC 5892 is needed based on the changes made in
    Unicode 6.0.

    This consensus does not imply that no changes will be made to
    RFC 5892 for all future updates of The Unicode Standard.

    This RFC has been produced because 6.0 is the first version of
    Unicode to be released since IDNA2008 was published.
--------------------

I see no particular reason why such a section couldn't be added
to Patrik's draft, allowing it to be processed like 6452 if that is
felt to be more appropriate.

>   It
> would be wildly inappropriate for it to constrain the
> conclusions the IETF could reach about those other documents.

I don't see how this would constrain IETF conclusions about other documents,
or even RFC 5892 itself (other than that the consensus is to not add 
exceptions).

There are changes that may be motivated by the general aspects of the 
interaction
between Unicode and IDNA, but the kind of language as quoted above would not
rule those out.

You would need to make a more concrete claim how processing this RFC
interferes with the work of IETF.

> My understanding coming out of the BOF at IETF 102 was that the
> ART ADs were going to establish a directorate to determine how
> i18n documents were to be handled and to start processing those
> documents.  This document would make an entirely reasonable
> addition to that directorate's queue.   However, if an progress
> has been made on creating that directorate, much less having it
> convene and discuss processing of documents, I seem to have
> missed the announcement(s).

I don't necessarily see the plan for a new directorate as suspending IETFs
ability to process certain RFCs indefinitely. The goal was to make it 
possible
to process more of them and more consistently, not to provide an additional
hurdle.

(Taken to its logical conclusion, such restriction would have to apply 
to all
RFCs that such a directorate might be giving i18n related input on. I don't
see that happening, so I don't see why this draft needs to be singled out).

That said, I would also like to learn what progress is being made.

At some point, people were looking for volunteers, but at that point the
parameters were sufficiently vague for anyone to know what they would
be committing to.

A./