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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 21:30 +0000 Shawn Steele
<[e-mail]> 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