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

Ben Campbell <> Tue, 04 December 2018 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EEA7130EE4; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:30:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.878
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=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qL8TjcIPOeIv; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A3F9130E51; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wB4LTuom039406 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:29:57 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: Ben Campbell <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3093192E-4AA2-4A43-99A0-ACB31F2F44BE"; 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 15:29:56 -0600
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>,,,,
To: Ted Hardie <>
References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 21:30:03 -0000

Hi Ted,

I’d like to understand your objection better. (Please don’t take this as disagreement. Or agreement, for that matter :-) )

How do you see things like “advise”, “educate” and “inform” as being a grant of authority beyond that of a directorate? Individual participants can and do those things regularly; so I’m confused as why doing it as part of a directorate would be different. Do you read those things as putting the directorate in the approval path? Or are you concerned such advice would be given greater weight because of the directorate?



> On Dec 4, 2018, at 3:04 PM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:
> John,
> This is to advise you that I have notified the IESG that I strongly disagree with this conclusion on the scope of an i18n directorate; I heard calls for a directorate, not for a body with different characteristics sharing the name.  I have also notified them that I object to the formation of a body with a different remit to the usual "advise the ADs" unless a community discussion, charter, and discussion of how membership is selected takes place.
> We charter directorates now as advisory bodies to the ADs, and the ADs bear the responsibility for the related decisions (taking or not taking the advice as they see fit).  Since the ADs are selected by the NomCom, how they derive that authority and its limits are well known.  What you describe below departs from that, and unless it is made clear what authority is being granted and how the community is being consulted, I think it is outside of our process.
> Since this amounts to the early stage of an appeal, I have recused myself from further discussion within the IESG on this topic.
> On the more technical topic of the appropriate status (Standards Track or Informational) for this document, I will follow up as you suggest.
> Ted
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:19 PM John C Klensin < <>> wrote:
> Those who attended or watched the IETF 102 BOF in July will
> probably recall that it concluded that a group should be formed
> to provide a focus and expert advice on I18n issues to the
> community.   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.  Alexey (as the ART AD who is apparently taking lead
> responsibility for this work) has indicated that the
> "directorate" should be organized and announced very soon now.
> Because (if nothing else) the document follows up on RFC 6452,
> which was Standards Track, and because the directorate should
> have a chance to come together and review this document and its
> relationship to other pending work, the Last Call has now been
> cancelled (or, I hope more accurately, deferred).
> However, people should be aware of that document, that there has
> been a discussion on the I18Nrp list that is certainly relevant
> to the IDNA list and effort, that includes details not covered
> by the summary above, and may be relevant to the other lists
> copied; that the directorate is expected to be announced soon;
> and that draft-faltstrom-unicode11 and other relevant I-Ds,
> including some expired ones, may soon [re-]appear and require
> review and evaluation.
> At least until Patrik or the ADs suggest otherwise, the
> discussion of draft-faltstrom-unicode11 is on I18Nrp
> (subscription and archive information at
> <> )
> Happy reading and reviewing.
> And apologies for not getting this note out when the discussion
> first started up.
>     john
>     (no particular hats other than interested party although my
> hats as ex-EAI Co-Chair and author or contributor to a number of
> relevant RFCs and pending documents are around here somewhere)
> _______________________________________________
> I18n-discuss mailing list
> <>
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> precis mailing list