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

"Pete Resnick" <> Tue, 04 December 2018 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C0E130E73; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:54:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-3L4DoHMKJG; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE18B128D0C; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5206F62280; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:54:48 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQjkmIagOOZ1; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:54:44 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD1D46F62277; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:54:44 -0600 (CST)
From: "Pete Resnick" <>
To: "Ted Hardie" <>
Cc: "Ben Campbell" <>, "John C Klensin" <>,,,,
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:54:44 -0600
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.2r5568)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 22:54:56 -0000

On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Given that the first suggestion here was that a document could not go 
> through last call until it had been reviewed by the group and John's 
> message seemed to indicate that its authority was not simply to advise 
> an AD, I inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an 
> independent authority to foster work or block documents.

Have a look at You 
will see a state between "AD Evaluation" and "Last Call Requested" 
called "Expert Review". At an AD's discretion, before a document is sent 
for Last Call:

    An AD sometimes asks for an external review by an outside party as
    part of evaluating whether a document is ready for advancement.
    MIBs, for example, are reviewed by the "MIB doctors". Other types of
    reviews may also be requested (e.g., security, operations impact,
    etc.). Documents stay in this state until the review is complete and
    possibly until the issues raised in the review are addressed. See
    the "note" field for specific details on the nature of the review.

Moving a document out of Last Call back to AD Evaluation to send it for 
Expert Review, and blocking on that state until such review is complete, 
is and has been standard operating procedure for a long time. I see no 
independent authority being added here that overrides the discretion of 
the responsible AD.

> That seems to me to require discussion.

I disagree.


Pete Resnick
All connections to the world are tenuous at best