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

"Marc Blanchet" <> Wed, 05 December 2018 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C632A130DF7 for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:08:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.36
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZcU-qn8eA1zp for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:08:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BDCD130F0F for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:08:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e5so24135913qtr.12 for <>; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:08:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ixohzz4uQmIoHImCOsgFiOuGUUCE05hkQLOtWIaRkeQ=; b=OOXK6Eryntfe9UO4/zxmiCjJAlAa1ygcnvKMNaTYzYWWAm1eTYjffI4JreAa6HvJSM /mvKlko5zMAgLUGcUc4gD8VVRLiO0338h1+w+FORB8k/NWOwcsuGzvkE/TKndOuZWBji zX71mDYcS0OR8ERkeH2G70xg1NaQdidn25qMDPWmy4aZCEYvHdv6Xc0RujGXRBeoJ2qA yIU2tanhNqPo0yPozsuNi9hTBawghq9HgQxKZWJTLvTtyt9ISTuQ5jteh+wt+1Q2DC4D nfqcCdcRfT66I9hToKLrk5i7GdveT34IEMn/pPYDQID8iCjYlz+CWCkIq4bsG4QOxRKM 4WaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ixohzz4uQmIoHImCOsgFiOuGUUCE05hkQLOtWIaRkeQ=; b=lXJ+A62fiBFDzfO0eSA4XPsPblQzSiUjfIpXY5uVwkGHtlTbx8DUqJXyahTjDxBEau 4xL8oNBuguzDZQ1px4eAFKSLXsCC6qj2FyUqrLxsgXZ/w5M//Snu/FxSOnJ3IG2HvSy2 vywRX0Rk6e56fblTOlhRzU1/bDG5MCtJnuawICY40Ut1o1gmyo/r0og/2hds71PTOaZt +nFJ8Nuh+M3kctcWpQ/391Qn4SYWRC1/KFzyoUcVtBt65vKe3Jj9CTXFB46NgJJ9dWdO OhIpsCbbfPN/ctR5DsaPAjt8Wqvno5uYoggfbgARmJ+mrn0askOB5oVQu9HIMVY/tYFA 4JZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWY3Km1CQcEhV+uQWmeefr0GA4wyUlUAVjIS2UecJeINGIsR/DJO dcFDXafYuUc8gyJxUJuPbk7pwA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WOnRmYP5boMhtaNJoHsrMKFYjg+OMBHrpSLDKqOa4kgQDMzvYcwS2RQzE3UeruKfwyXL68SA==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6b18:: with SMTP id w24mr25485920qts.144.1544047726260; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:08:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v42sm13725513qth.32.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:08:45 -0800 (PST)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <>
To: "John C Klensin" <>
Cc: "Vint Cerf" <>,, "Ted Hardie" <>,,,,,
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:08:43 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.2r5568)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <D2B358AAD54EE0F95707FD31@PSB>
References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <D2B358AAD54EE0F95707FD31@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] [Idna-update] [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: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 22:08:50 -0000

On 5 Dec 2018, at 16:37, John C Klensin wrote:

> But, with two qualifications, that is all that has ever been
> proposed.  Those are:
> (1) Because the root of the problems in this topic area is (or
> appears to be) that the IETF community doesn't know nearly as
> much about the topic as it would in a more ideal world and
> because i18n work spans traditional and current Areas, I hope
> the advice would be public rather than delivered in secret to
> the AD and I would hope that the group would make an extra
> effort to explain its reasoning in ways that the community (not
> just the ADs) could understand and learn from.  I would hope
> that the group members would want to do those things and that
> the relevant AD(s) would insist on them.  (I don't think you
> intended advice delivered in secret and kept that way, but your
> suggestion could be read that way).  I think that is consistent
> with your interpretation of "educating..." but can be see how
> that could be interpreted differently, just as my initial
> suggestion was.

it has been « by design » that Stringprep [RFC3454] and its 
replacement Precis[RFC8264] that there will be « requests » on how 
to do « the precis profile for my protocol » from the community. 
This happened for Stringprep quite a lot after the release of 
Stringprep. With Precis, we updated many of those to use Precis instead, 
but when the precis working group was closed, there was still many 
profiles-to-update left and obviously others will come.

Therefore, for Precis at least, there will be some 
community—i18ndirectorate exchanges similar to yang doctors.


> (2) Not unlike our "Doctors" model (and consistent with the very
> informal consultations about some LAMPS documents which I
> believe were successful), I'd expect WGs and
> document-developers, including those in other Areas, to want to
> consult this group for advice and even help with text in
> documents.   I'd hope that could be handled informally,
> directly, and efficiently, with a focus on getting quality work
> done.   I think it would be very unfortunate if the same sort of
> procedure-lawyering that has gotten involved in this thread
> would turn those efforts into requirements for a process that
> would go something like:
>    (OtherWG (or AD in other Area)): Dear ART ADs, would you
> please ask the Directorate to review XYZ and help with text.
>    (ART AD to OtherWG): Sure
>    (ART AD to Directorate): Please see this request from
> OtherWG, deal with it, and tell me.
>    (Directorate to ART AD (because they are expected to advise
> that AD and no one else): ART AD, we think ABCDE
>    (ART AT to Other WG): Directorate says "we think ABCDE"
> Possibly followed by additional iterations of this waste of the
> time of ADs and Directorate members, especially if specific text
> were asked for and/or suggested.
> I think that would be seriously dumb and hope my example shows
> that and why.  But it would be consistent with efforts to draw
> narrow lines around supposed principles such as "the only thing
> a directorate is allowed to do is to advise ADs in that area).
> best,
>    john
> --On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 19:21 -0500 Vint Cerf
> <> wrote:
>> suggestion:
>> set up the advisory group and allow it to offer advice to the
>> appropriate AD.
>> This same advisory group can reasonably share its findings
>> more generally, thereby "educating...." the rest of the
>> community. No power to block should either explicitly or
>> implicitly be inferred by the creation of the advisory body.
> _______________________________________________
> IDNA-UPDATE mailing list