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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 05 December 2018 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 C0B12131021; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:09:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 OZc_t-5ub7Z5; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 B3D59130FE8; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.24] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wB508uiE064761 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:08:57 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.24]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <921E77FB-64DA-4A09-95BB-7307099F0B43@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_33D2BA77-35E5-468C-A032-377297E070FE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.1 \(3445.101.1\))
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:08:56 -0600
In-Reply-To: <E8C57B36-17DA-4ED2-9E74-6740B979702F@episteme.net>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
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> <CA+9kkMC0ioSoRP-7gZ6uEz77vASKoTW476gJef5jJieWr7Gipg@mail.gmail.com> <E8C57B36-17DA-4ED2-9E74-6740B979702F@episteme.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/Xf4T-GxHIdJdlxL5LkmrUBlRnhc>
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:09:12 -0000

Responding to a couple of points, inline:

> On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>; wrote:
> 
> Trimming a bit:
> 
> On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 
> Howdy Pete,
> 
> 
> Please re-read John's message, which includes this:
> 
> "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.
> 
> Certainly to some small extent all of the directorates "advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community", as each is willing to do early reviews, and some of the advisory groups (like the assorted "Doctors") will help a WG when directly solicited by the WG. The fact that those duties get a more formal mention in the mission of the i18n directorate doesn't give me pause. But what I was responding to was this part of your earlier message:
> 
> On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 
> ...I inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an
> independent authority to foster work or block documents.
> 
> Like Ben, I see nothing in John's words (or any of the discussions of the directorate) that indicate any power to "block documents", let alone some other sort of special "independent authority" (beyond what we already have experience with). And that seems the real basis for your objection. I think perhaps you're tilting at a windmill
> 
> 

As an ART AD, my expectation is that the directorates only power to block documents  would be to convince a (typically ART) AD to do so.

> 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.
> 
> John has asserted that it is not only that. But the only thing that it appears to be beyond that is a group that can, as John said, "advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community".
> 
> Given that
> assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in what it
> is instead.
> 
> If it had any additional authority, I would agree. It does not appear to, and therefore I do not.
> 
> 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.
> 
> There is no power, but often there is more organization. That seems like a legitimate reason for the pause.
> 
At the risk of putting words into Alexey’s mouth, I think this was an exceptional case due to the fact that the directorate creation was imminent, but perhaps not so imminent that it could finish it’s first review before the LC ended. It was Alexey’s choice to stop the LC, but he might have chosen the same even if he just asked an individual to do an expert review.

Thanks!

Ben.