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

Vint Cerf <> Wed, 05 December 2018 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E29130EB2 for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:21:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -18.958
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.958 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 5Xv950iM0gB0 for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40FA51200B3 for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x202so15969948oif.13 for <>; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:21:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iNVTkff7PLY1nSLCsnaxYPwZXpoln1dmdzlYwDWdBEQ=; b=hjuUnKPpKlZY5ZIAojf8hR6S/1cqmTKHUGWloYufVMgp1x0oslLX3Jc4vi6fiwO9oJ Wx4cH73TDXrgP+Gu3KrL6kKqf+x6bJ+2OLHhhSwXZI49knXVd2Vs5CxDmNUhurYoqoNx /gtWQJBe3FDqpSS9AYV/qJXQizeDhCaqMx/nWXbhArwscruYi4rjgYbzvMw0xK3QUFC9 0glYRBc3+verqQRxjvJIz7qHW7SL4T7qIuUnvyOQR8BLoxE7RRf1VlZTYAtj8LYX+pjZ 1wxVyC+Mz6owYj0/tFC00ycmM5Gt9ngVZBrfS0sE9nLeefcJh8ILiIl8ZId+tAYciiPJ v8uQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iNVTkff7PLY1nSLCsnaxYPwZXpoln1dmdzlYwDWdBEQ=; b=kNjZf/UcfDtdQhHrKXIS3K1J99vrpsy8ie1nU7cOx7JUTWSyiTBdLPun3V5D0n5o99 n/NEmGMT87p0jE1QLRdm3/A6ZgYdIUxkLCBOZ7AvggWF5CfOv+oYCXYtH8ftClOlRB2w je+4i5hOG8uZ3XtrdSJBbc/bJK1dpoLXXx3v/tFhw9LDeRNW7UYbu003QwUMnQ14M3TU V/J/RNvk85Cvsy5Px3PdPYMjmyAJh2bpfk5s3zaRw+cJ25lVlIYdNzim3QURfwUKFB72 bf1EIIKZO9IzwvW5BCq864CV4XAzWXHIN/9ZSFfFP9eWg0ktJz1itGtodLoFsDRMK3te kWyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYHN2QnQRm6lWeuuoLk5JZo+fjGxzM9r4FUjKW1c9ftkvh/GZuT V6Y7OhyDKl4ze3A3bD0+dTfGerRNbeHKaUtRUroqlQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/X+WP66+ooFIZnE05Og5hnHFHuaQYFTRfkrZGDn5A3JPneH0SIZuSDjyBehUbaHLc/CsE0cT3Ysv01sWvVaxF4=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:adcd:: with SMTP id w196mr14256701oie.353.1543969272229; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:21:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Vint Cerf <>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:21:01 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Cc:, Ted Hardie <>,,,, John C Klensin <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000497ab057c3b5cb0"
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 00:21:16 -0000


set up the advisory group and allow it to offer advice to the appropriate
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


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:09 PM Ben Campbell <> wrote:

> Responding to a couple of points, inline:
> On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Pete Resnick <> wrote:
> Trimming a bit:
> On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Howdy Pete,
> Please re-read John's message, which includes this:
> "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. "
> As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with an AD requesting a
> review of a specific individual or set of individuals. But John's message
> is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different than the
> usual directorate.
> Certainly to some small extent all of the directorates "advise, inform,
> and perhaps even educate the community", as each is willing to do early
> reviews, and some of the advisory groups (like the assorted "Doctors") will
> help a WG when directly solicited by the WG. The fact that those duties get
> a more formal mention in the mission of the i18n directorate doesn't give
> me pause. But what I was responding to was this part of your earlier
> message:
> On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote:
> ...I inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an
> independent authority to foster work or block documents.
> Like Ben, I see nothing in John's words (or any of the discussions of the
> directorate) that indicate any power to "block documents", let alone some
> other sort of special "independent authority" (beyond what we already have
> experience with). And that seems the real basis for your objection. I think
> perhaps you're tilting at a windmill
> As an ART AD, my expectation is that the directorates only power to block
> documents  would be to convince a (typically ART) AD to do so.
> That concerns me, especially if it is meant to have a
> review power beyond "advising the ART ADs", which is what (ART)
> directorates do. Soliciting and receiving that advice is the state you're
> pointing to, and but John has asserted this is not that.
> John has asserted that it is not *only* that. But the only thing that it
> appears to be beyond that is a group that can, as John said, "advise,
> inform, and perhaps even educate the community".
> Given that
> assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in what it
> is instead.
> If it had any additional authority, I would agree. It does not appear to,
> and therefore I do not.
> I also am disappointed that the ART ADs did not simply ask the relevant
> questions of the people that they would or will put on the Directorate, if
> they are seeking the usual sort of advice. There is no power in the advice
> coming from a directorate rather than Individual 1 or 2. But that is a
> timing question, not a process point.
> There is no power, but often there is more organization. That seems like a
> legitimate reason for the pause.
> At the risk of putting words into Alexey’s mouth, I think this was an
> exceptional case due to the fact that the directorate creation was
> imminent, but perhaps not so imminent that it could finish it’s first
> review before the LC ended. It was Alexey’s choice to stop the LC, but he
> might have chosen the same even if he just asked an individual to do an
> expert review.
> Thanks!
> Ben.
> _______________________________________________
> IDNA-UPDATE mailing list

New postal address:
1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
Reston, VA 20190