Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus

Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Wed, 14 September 2011 21:48 UTC

From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus
Thread-Index: AcxzEqOfmC2Dw+cMRxWBdUTH+uh0YwATSfcAAA6bSOD//5EsAIAAdS2A
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:50:50 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32B74F5F@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32B73F18@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <14D07F2441ADA2EBD5D53677@PST.JCK.COM> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32B74C98@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <FC7B2A29FF4CF1799F230329@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <FC7B2A29FF4CF1799F230329@PST.JCK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus
Precedence: list

Yes, I realize there's a risk of  the advice getting lost, however I'd rather take that risk than delaying or risking the existing docs

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin@jck.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:49 PM
To: Shawn Steele; ima@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus

--On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 21:30 +0000 Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I don't care which one, except don't reopen the queued one, not high 
> priority for me, just don't want a lot of back and forth.

Shawn (and others),

I'm asking for two main reasons:

(1) I think  there is a real possibility that the "advice"
documents will get lost, or at least deferred for a long time, after we extrapolate from current levels of activity in the WG to the likelihood of taking on new documents and getting them done in a reasonable period.  IMO, the odds go up somewhat if we handle those documents as Applicability Statements and can get WG and IESG consensus for publishing versions at Proposed Standard without broad consensus that all issues have been addressed and all nits picked, but I don't know how realistic
that is.   In any event, if the WG decides that the text should
go into an "advice document" that has not yet been put on the agenda, we need to be prepared to abandon that text if the WG shuts down before that advice document is published.

(2) There has been a brief discussion of another option, which would be to attach this sort of material as an appendix to 5335bis.  That has several disadvantages, including some risk of 5335bis being delayed while we quibble about text.

FWIW, my personal view is that we should narrow 5335bis and 5336bis as much as possible in the interest of getting agreement and getting them out, but that is not a co-chair opinion.  Given the risk of losing the material, I do not believe the co-chairs or author team should make the decision without an opportunity for advice from the WG.

   john

[EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Joseph Yee
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Tony Hansen
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Joseph Yee
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Shawn Steele
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Arnt Gulbrandsen
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus John C Klensin
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Shawn Steele
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus John C Klensin
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Shawn Steele
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Joseph Yee
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Shawn Steele
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Martin J. Dürst
Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs consensus Joseph Yee