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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 04 December 2018 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36C9130DC8; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:38:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 SaPW7A7LXlPZ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:38:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E32F212E7C1; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id c206so15964904oib.0; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:38:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yz4X05uHxfmIxvCJtPvDL/U4A4zg0WHufwuDr0BoNKk=; b=jCL1LJG/RfdXOMUp2TNeL2uRACj/dK9L3r9rF3u64VQ3viLlTcOZTmc8188ZswkXfS XzNhPbZuCUeufewSIN3CFAEvN6NbtYBRMytedo/thBA5msZKIr9MbEci1yWX2aP8oSlJ /Wz0k1eeXauD0ylEYAFzsh+a0PUhu2lhSdubhohHmLxmwxAXKWKOAwIzU3raT5kKGUsv lGGjBY8oG5J01F0+fnOFKh4knCZlztzcrG+4tcju8KA7MyaBkDSASMGxZe9Xl5sjeIm/ 24BGKsJyUm112SzzgerCb7FBT82hdImFAPwwOa9FRJvwru+i/ZMjiLyZ7ccaPZ1SZm06 yJDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yz4X05uHxfmIxvCJtPvDL/U4A4zg0WHufwuDr0BoNKk=; b=fuSJJvRBlzV8rwDcms7SZm+wpkWYsO5bw+YxAb1NiflV7wmx4CL/1hywAUP/qbH1TE TPvkGNsfNGpgrDeVVWC5WSI3HRnTZCYgTGpbFdf8M/dT4WHNeatAUdqiuUvc9Q8Z6Mkt BXcsib+pqX5rGmchUW9Yy2fKTiizSGqkRd21vhuvl1sgQxgAurgml4D1mjrWnuyaUXPz x8SkDbwyAfLGsCykBQkU/T4cX4KSe/jKaN22tLdh9wEe8uacB5cENvY6njiAFdJDIO1b 5eJ5Nb24zO9zkcPqxnHryd7bq6HLReNeWsSBQYSuTYyIQ0SE5UVdmFIk9iJyFPVxSlWq rGQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaiROZokxe5AGPYOiDecAWsC2rdCkRhSo2TzjhvQNzctwwzBnSi FWJQTRDDy1CvNiURFmNTM8n6Kx1cRR2JY7LL2BxDSRD1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XfiRlCPEeM7W60LgnyNUi9XBfMry/F0QsuMpcXlYAeZN3n/hEYNAxyFm5YzbNwxSdE4LBtuXCE5sFphb+eCJk=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c4d8:: with SMTP id u207mr13225849oif.30.1543966684823; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:38:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <CA+9kkMAoGT-bnEk0bxieQBwd=yM+bvFfV4yyGf9gdyjm=zOtBw@mail.gmail.com> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMBRP3Aj0w9LfiuOqnzL0JK2OgWA9iDKhH6f9eGrDzbmPg@mail.gmail.com> <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:37:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMC0ioSoRP-7gZ6uEz77vASKoTW476gJef5jJieWr7Gipg@mail.gmail.com>
To: resnick@episteme.net
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb459e057c3ac16e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/VyHWchPIzYbou2uhIRpg_lchmdU>
Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ima/>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:38:09 -0000

Howdy Pete,


Please re-read John's message, which includes this:

" It was described as a "directorate" because that
term and organizational arrangement is familiar in the IETF, but
it was quite clear (at least to many of us) that its mission was
to advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community on
i18n issues, rather than merely advising the ART ADs and/or
designating people to perform reviews late in the Last Call
cycle. "

As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with an AD requesting a
review of a specific individual or set of individuals.  But John's message
is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different than the
usual directorate. That concerns me, especially if it is meant to have a
review power beyond "advising the ART ADs", which is what (ART)
directorates do.  Soliciting and receiving that advice is the state you're
pointing to, and but John has asserted this is not that.  Given that
assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in what it
is instead.

I also am disappointed that the ART ADs did not simply ask the relevant
questions of the people that they would or will put on the Directorate, if
they are seeking the usual sort of advice.  There is no power in the advice
coming from a directorate rather than Individual 1 or 2. But that is a
timing question, not a process point.

regards,

Ted

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:54 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>; wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> > Given that the first suggestion here was that a document could not go
> > through last call until it had been reviewed by the group and John's
> > message seemed to indicate that its authority was not simply to advise
> > an AD, I inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an
> > independent authority to foster work or block documents.
>
> Have a look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iesg. You
> will see a state between "AD Evaluation" and "Last Call Requested"
> called "Expert Review". At an AD's discretion, before a document is sent
> for Last Call:
>
>     An AD sometimes asks for an external review by an outside party as
>     part of evaluating whether a document is ready for advancement.
>     MIBs, for example, are reviewed by the "MIB doctors". Other types of
>     reviews may also be requested (e.g., security, operations impact,
>     etc.). Documents stay in this state until the review is complete and
>     possibly until the issues raised in the review are addressed. See
>     the "note" field for specific details on the nature of the review.
>
> Moving a document out of Last Call back to AD Evaluation to send it for
> Expert Review, and blocking on that state until such review is complete,
> is and has been standard operating procedure for a long time. I see no
> independent authority being added here that overrides the discretion of
> the responsible AD.
>
> > That seems to me to require discussion.
>
> I disagree.
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>