Re: [precis] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-08: (with COMMENT)

John C Klensin <> Thu, 06 July 2017 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9D2131648; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 07:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OOA73WHaX_my; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 07:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9EA12F092; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 07:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1dT81r-0009D7-ND; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:45:15 -0400
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:45:08 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>, Ben Campbell <>
cc:,, The IESG <>,
Message-ID: <5016E035002FFCEF1FE1671F@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <AC2020C46F863322457CAE2C@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-08: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 14:45:20 -0000

--On Thursday, July 6, 2017 08:38 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<> wrote:

>>>    Note: IANA is requested to not make further updates to
>>>    this registry    until the issues described in
>>> [IAB-Statement] and Section 13.5 have    been settled.
>> While not an ideal solution (it is not clear to me that there
>> is such a thing), this addition removes my objection to
>> processing (and approving and publishing) the PRECIS
>> documents at this time.
> Yes, this seems like the best course.

Yeah although extrapolation from the ICANN experience with the
IANA IDNA database and the tone of complaints from that
direction in combination with how well we seem to be doing about
processing, and getting meaningful consensus for, I18n documents
more generally, it would be reasonable to translate that
statement as something involving "never".  Given the statement,
I don't see it as useful to further hold up the PRECIS
documents, especially because they are a clear improvement over
their predecessors, but, IMO, we had better recognize, soon,
that we have a problem and start doing something about it.