Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] [art] Comments on draft-faltstrom-unicode11-02

Posting from far outside the level of expertise I'd hope to find in the
archives for this mailing list, but on one particular point.

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:11 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> Suzanne, Ted,
>
> Let me build on Patrik's clarification to explain what I'm
> concerned about (some other issues have been raised that I'll
> come back to later).   I had read Ted's comment about
> AD-sponsorship and IANA as implying something close to Patrik's
> "C", i.e., the IAB decides it has the authority to just move
> forward with this.  I think that would be a bad idea for the
> reasons below.   But Ted said he was suggesting only asking
> IANA's opinion as to whether the instructions to them were
> sufficient and doing so in parallel with starting to advance the
> document.   I don't see any problem with that; it would
> certainly be consistent with other comments I've made lately
> about working together informally to get things done rather than
> getting tied up in procedures, throwing things over virtual
> walls, and figuring out how and when to do that.
>

As an AD, I've had more problems when I asked for feedback on schedule and
could reasonably have asked for early feedback, than I've had when asking
for early feedback. I don't have a lot of experience with complex IANA
instructions, but even then, we've asked IANA their opinions a few times,
early in the process.

I'll leave it to others to determine what the right answer is in this
specific case, but I hope John is right.

Spencer

> My concern was precisely about heading down the path to Patrik's
> "C".  I think what we have learned in the last few years is that
> things are more complicated -- and complicated in ways that
> affect IDNA (and, btw, PRECIS) -- than the community assumed
> when IDNA2008 was adopted.  Those complications include, but are
> not just about, the issues that started out with the "Hamza"
> discussion that prompted the original IAB statement on that
> subject and evolved into what some of us have called the
> non-decomposing precomposed character issue.  They also include
> some of the issues Asmus has identified about complex scripts
> and the requirements they impose as well as, e.g., issues of
> registry responsibility and accountability (not only from
> IDNA2008 but going back to RFC 1591 and earlier) and other
> topics that may be in need of clarification and/or more serious
> attention.
>
> If we are either going to change or clarify IDNA2008 to address
> those issues or decide to push ahead without addressing them at
> all (which, itself, would change or clarify IDNA2008), I think
> that must be an IETF consensus position, not done on the basis
> of the IAB declaring what it believes (something the IAB is
> certainly entitled to do).
>
> best,
>     john
>
>
>
>
> --On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 06:37 +0200 Patrik Fältström
> <paf@netnod.se> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> On 9 Oct 2018, at 05:29, Suzanne Woolf
> >> <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. Updating the IDN parameters registry as the IAB requested.
> >> With apologies if I'm missing something, I don't see the
> >> expert saying he can't update the registry for some reason,
> >> or that there's any ambiguity in what the update should be;
> >> it's his judgment that "the right thing to do" about
> >> the code points that changed properties between Unicode 6.3
> >> and Unicode 11 is consistent with what the standard tells him
> >> to do. So for the current situation, the standard, including
> >> the instructions to the expert, is adequate.
> >
> > The key thing here is that I do not see myself have the
> > competence in actually ensuring what I propose in the I-D is
> > the correct thing to do. There are other alternatives as well,
> > such as adding an exception to the IDNA2008 rule set.
> >
> > IAB asked me to bring things forward, and my call is what I
> > call path A: A.1. Suggest a path forward
> > A.2. Ask IETF to ensure what I propose is the right thing.
> >
> > This is btw what was done last time we had an incompatible
> > change like this.
> >
> > Alternatives could have been:
> >
> > B. Be passive:
> > B.1. I ask IETF what to do with the incompatible changes (but
> > do not suggest anything) B.2. IETF tell me what to do
> >
> > C. Have IAB make the call
> > C.1. IAB tell me not only to move things forward, but also
> > "IAB have decided that the changes made in Unicode do not
> > require backward compatible rules in IDNA2008" C.2. I move
> > things forward based on B.1.
> >
> > FWIW, I did not interpret what IAB told me was "C" which I
> > read in your note Suz. Maybe I misunderstand you.
> >
> > Now, IF IAB really told me C, then can you please clarify?
> >
> >    Patrik
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i18nRP mailing list
> i18nRP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp
>