Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 05 December 2018 22:02 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F22130E89; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:02:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XiMHlPg9NQNE; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F03F130E5D; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1gUfFW-0004IC-QW; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:02:30 -0500
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:02:23 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
cc: i18nrp@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, idna-update@ietf.org
Message-ID: <DECE7E7897CB1D5C5D548886@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204185928.1085a3d0@elandnews.com>
References: <FF58A82A9FC582B643CD76B4@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20181204185928.1085a3d0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idna-update/qgGloOAjj1h-PykA6PlvHkl5Pj4>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
X-BeenThere: idna-update@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <idna-update.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idna-update/>
List-Post: <mailto:idna-update@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 22:02:34 -0000
--On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 19:30 -0800 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> 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. > 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. > 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. john
- Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss… John C Klensin
- Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss… John C Klensin
- Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss… Asmus Freytag
- Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss… Ted Hardie