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

On 5 Dec 2018, at 16:37, John C Klensin wrote:

> But, with two qualifications, that is all that has ever been
> proposed.  Those are:
>
> (1) Because the root of the problems in this topic area is (or
> appears to be) that the IETF community doesn't know nearly as
> much about the topic as it would in a more ideal world and
> because i18n work spans traditional and current Areas, I hope
> the advice would be public rather than delivered in secret to
> the AD and I would hope that the group would make an extra
> effort to explain its reasoning in ways that the community (not
> just the ADs) could understand and learn from.  I would hope
> that the group members would want to do those things and that
> the relevant AD(s) would insist on them.  (I don't think you
> intended advice delivered in secret and kept that way, but your
> suggestion could be read that way).  I think that is consistent
> with your interpretation of "educating..." but can be see how
> that could be interpreted differently, just as my initial
> suggestion was.

it has been « by design » that Stringprep [RFC3454] and its 
replacement Precis[RFC8264] that there will be « requests » on how 
to do « the precis profile for my protocol » from the community. 
This happened for Stringprep quite a lot after the release of 
Stringprep. With Precis, we updated many of those to use Precis instead, 
but when the precis working group was closed, there was still many 
profiles-to-update left and obviously others will come.

Therefore, for Precis at least, there will be some 
community—i18ndirectorate exchanges similar to yang doctors.

Marc.

>
> (2) Not unlike our "Doctors" model (and consistent with the very
> informal consultations about some LAMPS documents which I
> believe were successful), I'd expect WGs and
> document-developers, including those in other Areas, to want to
> consult this group for advice and even help with text in
> documents.   I'd hope that could be handled informally,
> directly, and efficiently, with a focus on getting quality work
> done.   I think it would be very unfortunate if the same sort of
> procedure-lawyering that has gotten involved in this thread
> would turn those efforts into requirements for a process that
> would go something like:
>
>    (OtherWG (or AD in other Area)): Dear ART ADs, would you
> please ask the Directorate to review XYZ and help with text.
>    (ART AD to OtherWG): Sure
>    (ART AD to Directorate): Please see this request from
> OtherWG, deal with it, and tell me.
>    (Directorate to ART AD (because they are expected to advise
> that AD and no one else): ART AD, we think ABCDE
>    (ART AT to Other WG): Directorate says "we think ABCDE"
>
> Possibly followed by additional iterations of this waste of the
> time of ADs and Directorate members, especially if specific text
> were asked for and/or suggested.
>
> I think that would be seriously dumb and hope my example shows
> that and why.  But it would be consistent with efforts to draw
> narrow lines around supposed principles such as "the only thing
> a directorate is allowed to do is to advise ADs in that area).
>
> best,
>    john
>
>
> --On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 19:21 -0500 Vint Cerf
> <vint@google.com> wrote:
>
>> suggestion:
>>
>> set up the advisory group and allow it to offer advice to the
>> appropriate AD.
>> This same advisory group can reasonably share its findings
>> more generally, thereby "educating...." the rest of the
>> community. No power to block should either explicitly or
>> implicitly be inferred by the creation of the advisory body.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IDNA-UPDATE mailing list
> IDNA-UPDATE@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update