From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Aug 1 14:35:05 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10748 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17aKXR-000D3e-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:19:05 -0700 Received: from mail.proper.com ([208.184.76.45] helo=above.proper.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17aKXM-000D34-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:19:00 -0700 Received: from [165.227.249.18] (165-227-249-18.client.dsl.net [165.227.249.18]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g71IIuw03633 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:18:53 -0700 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: [idn] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-stringprep-05.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.8 required=5.0 tests=EXCUSE_6,CLICK_BELOW,DOUBLE_CAPSWORD version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: **** Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk This draft contains a few changes that were prompted by the post-last-comments asking for clarity on the new BIDI section. It now goes to the IESG to consider. >To: IETF-Announce: ; >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-stringprep-05.txt >Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 07:40:00 -0400 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Preparation of Internationalized Strings > ('stringprep') > Author(s) : P. Hoffman, M. Blanchet > Filename : draft-hoffman-stringprep-05.txt > Pages : > Date : 31-Jul-02 > >This document describes a framework for preparing Unicode text strings >in order to increase the likelihood that string input and string >comparison work in ways that make sense for typical users throughout the >world. The stringprep protocol is useful for protocol identifier values, >company and personal names, internationalized domain names, and other >text strings. > >This document does not specify how protocols should prepare text >strings. Protocols must create profiles of stringprep in order to fully >specify the processing options. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-stringprep-05.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-hoffman-stringprep-05.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-stringprep-05.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. > > >[The following attachment must be fetched by mail. Command-click the >URL below and send the resulting message to get the attachment.] > >[The following attachment must be fetched by ftp. Command-click the >URL below to ask your ftp client to fetch it.] > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Tue Aug 20 11:40:47 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17683 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17hAtr-000FuJ-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:26:31 -0700 Received: from heron.verisign.com ([216.168.233.95]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17hAti-000Ftk-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:26:22 -0700 Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16029 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:26:21 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'idn@ops.ietf.org'" Subject: [idn] Document Status? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:25:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk With the most recent updates to the IDNA, punycode, nameprep, and stringprep documents do the document editors believe that the issues raised by Erik's questions have all been resolved? I'm wondering if the current document set is thought to be ready for IESG review (and if Erik concurs), or if more edits are planned. -Scott- From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Tue Aug 20 11:48:16 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17846 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17hB4x-000GBq-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:37:59 -0700 Received: from smtp26.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.101.225]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17hB4s-000GBe-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:37:55 -0700 Received: from JAMESSONYVAIO (bb-203-125-84-86.singnet.com.sg [203.125.84.86]) by smtp26.singnet.com.sg (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7KFblCa006863; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:37:47 +0800 Message-ID: <045d01c2485f$6aae0e40$8900a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> From: "James Seng" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , References: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:36:56 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL, X_RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,FUDGE_MULTIHOP_RELAY version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You can find the status of these draft here: http://www.iesg.org/IESG/status.html They are currently waiting for write up. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 11:25 PM Subject: [idn] Document Status? > With the most recent updates to the IDNA, punycode, nameprep, and stringprep > documents do the document editors believe that the issues raised by Erik's > questions have all been resolved? I'm wondering if the current document set > is thought to be ready for IESG review (and if Erik concurs), or if more > edits are planned. > > -Scott- > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Tue Aug 20 12:04:12 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18231 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17hBMb-000GgZ-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:56:13 -0700 Received: from heron.verisign.com ([216.168.233.95]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17hBMX-000GgJ-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:56:09 -0700 Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18829; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:56:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:56:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA4@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'James Seng'" , idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: [idn] Document Status? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:52:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk > You can find the status of these draft here: > > http://www.iesg.org/IESG/status.html > > They are currently waiting for write up. Yes, I saw that before sending my note (stringprep is actually listed differently), but it doesn't directly answer my question: did the May-August edits address the issues needed to complete the write-up, or is more work needed? Based on the lack of recent discussion I'm assuming that the documents are ready, but I'd like to confirm that suspicion. -Scott- From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sun Aug 25 03:55:57 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA05592 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:55:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17irz9-000FZE-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:38:59 -0700 Received: from patan.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17irz6-000FZ0-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:38:56 -0700 Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16342; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 01:38:53 -0600 (MDT) Received: from lillen (punchin-nordmark.Eng.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id g7P7cnA19760; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:38:50 +0200 (MEST) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:36:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Erik Nordmark Reply-To: Erik Nordmark Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Cc: "'idn@ops.ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk > With the most recent updates to the IDNA, punycode, nameprep, and stringprep > documents do the document editors believe that the issues raised by Erik's > questions have all been resolved? I'm wondering if the current document set > is thought to be ready for IESG review (and if Erik concurs), or if more > edits are planned. The stringprep document has been discussed by the IESG resulting in a request to make the document more explicit about various Unicode related security issues. The second set of last-called documents (IDNA, punycode, and nameprep) still have some IETF last call issues to resolve. The resultion will be in the form of an added applicability section in the IDNA document. There is still some word-smithing on that section, after which the documents will be ready to be discussed by the IESG as a whole. Erik From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Tue Aug 27 22:00:40 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20191 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17jrwe-0004qv-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:48:32 -0700 From: Phil Roberts To: IETF WG Participants: ; Subject: [idn] Nomcom call for volunteers Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:44:44 -0400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Message-Id: The members of the IESG and IAB and the IETF chair are selected by a nominations committee made up of volunteers from the IETF community. The nominations committee is now in the process of being formed and volunteers are being accepted until Sep 6. Please see (http://www.ietf.org/nomcom/msg19765.html) for information if you are interested in volunteering to be on the nominations committee. From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Fri Aug 30 11:51:40 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22579 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17knnG-0002vJ-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:34:42 -0700 Received: from smtp22.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.101.202]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17knnC-0002v7-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:34:38 -0700 Received: from JAMESSONYVAIO (bb-203-125-85-88.singnet.com.sg [203.125.85.88]) by smtp22.singnet.com.sg (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7UFYYZn024679 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:34:35 +0800 Message-ID: <016501c2503a$b740fcd0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> From: "James Seng" To: "IETF/IDN WG" Subject: [idn] Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-faerber-i18n-email-netnews-names-00.txt Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:34:22 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.3 required=5.0 tests=EXCUSE_6,DOUBLE_CAPSWORD,RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL, X_RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,FUDGE_MULTIHOP_RELAY version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: **** Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit fyi > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 7:49 AM > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-faerber-i18n-email-netnews-names-00.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : Internationalisation of Email Addresses,Newsgroup > Names and similar Identifiers > Author(s) : C. Faerber > Filename : draft-faerber-i18n-email-netnews-names-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 2002-8-29 > > This document describes a possible architecture for the > implementation of internationalised email addresses, newsgroup names, > and similar identifiers on top of the standards set by the > Internationalised Domain Names [IDN] working group. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-faerber-i18n-email-netnews-names-0 > 0.txt > > To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-faerber-i18n-email-netnews-names-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE > /internet-drafts/draft-faerber-i18n-email-netnews-names-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Fri Aug 30 12:50:54 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25203 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17koqF-0005tf-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:41:51 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17koq1-0005se-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:41:37 -0700 Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26986; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:52:51 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@jay.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1.3 (Beta) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:40:37 -0700 To: Erik Nordmark From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "'idn@ops.ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: References: <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,MAY_BE_FORGED,NO_MX_FOR_FROM, MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3 version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: * Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 09:36 AM 8/25/2002 +0200, Erik Nordmark wrote: >The second set of last-called documents (IDNA, punycode, and nameprep) still >have some IETF last call issues to resolve. The resultion will be in the form >of an added applicability section in the IDNA document. There is >still some word-smithing on that section, after which the documents will >be ready to be discussed by the IESG as a whole. Erik, One last try... Having not yet seen any detailed response on the matters I put forward some time ago, I will raise them again. Your note implies that the IESG does not agree that the current IDN specification suffers the following, basic deficiencies: >1. IDNA makes a formal change to the DNS, by expanding the name space from >a subset of ASCII to a subset of Unicode. This change is not clearly >documented in the IDNA specification. We usually document such major changes to basic protocols rather more explicitly. >2. The IDNA specification does not provide enough detail to permit its use >for the most common Domain names, which is those used in URLs and email >addresses. This means that someone registering an IDN domain name for use in email addresses and web addresses cannot know the exact set of valid IDN characters avalailable for use. If this interpretation of the specification is correct, IDN WILL NOT WORK. If this interpretation is not correct, it would help for someone to explain why. So far, the only explanation I have is from one of the specification's authors, saying that the set of valid characters is unclear and might become more restricted in the future and that anyone choosing an IDN now is gambling that their name will be made syntactically invalid later. >3. The specification imposes some user interface issues onto the protocol. >In particular, it defines multiple dot seperator characters, which is >equivalent to creating multiple newline definitions or multiple at-sign or >multiple "slash" definitions. This looks like a small matter of engineering preference, but it is the sort of thing that introduces notable implementation variations and interoperability problems. >4. The style of the current IDNA specification makes its use as a protocol >specification challenging. It is primarily tailored to programming, at the >expense of direct specification of the protocol. Any specification needs to pay attention to clarity, both for technical accuracy and for ease of adoption by the Internet technical community. The IDN specification effort has demonstrated a long and difficult history, notably including widespread failure to understand the nature and scope of the specification effort. A specification that is not crystal clear encourages that misunderstanding. The document does not clearly distinguish normative from non-normative text. The document does not clearly distinguish implementation choice from protocol specification. In fact, it is written almost entirely from a programming perspective, rather than as a protocol format. These are certain to encourage misunderstandings of the specification. Never good for interoperability. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker TribalWise, Inc. tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Fri Aug 30 13:46:26 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27569 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17kpjG-0008TV-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:38:42 -0700 Received: from mail.proper.com ([208.184.76.45] helo=above.proper.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17kpj9-0008So-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:38:35 -0700 Received: from [165.227.249.18] (165-227-249-18.client.dsl.net [165.227.249.18]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7UHcW219180 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> References: <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:38:31 -0700 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk The sky is not falling, Dave. A new draft that we believe meets the IESG's request for clarifications has already been turned into the Internet Drafts repository but has not been announced by the IETF Secretariat yet. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Fri Aug 30 14:13:44 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28775 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17kqBz-0009q4-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:08:23 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17kqBo-0009pd-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:08:13 -0700 Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29827; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:19:32 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@jay.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1.3 (Beta) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:07:31 -0700 To: Paul Hoffman / IMC From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,MAY_BE_FORGED,NO_MX_FOR_FROM, MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3 version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: * Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 10:38 AM 8/30/2002 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: >The sky is not falling, Dave. >A new draft that we believe meets the IESG's request for clarifications >has already been turned into the Internet Drafts repository but has not >been announced by the IETF Secretariat yet. Paul, it would be far more helpful to see responses to the particulars, rather than this sort of dismissive, handwaving condescension. It is absolutely fine for my concerns to be unwarranted. What is not fine is the continuing failure to address those concerns, with explanations that make clear why they are not warranted. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker TribalWise, Inc. tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Fri Aug 30 22:44:32 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13108 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17ky4l-0001um-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:33:27 -0700 Received: from smtp21.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.101.201]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17ky4f-0001ub-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:33:22 -0700 Received: from JAMESSONYVAIO (bb-203-125-86-3.singnet.com.sg [203.125.86.3]) by smtp21.singnet.com.sg (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7V2X77Y003218; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:33:07 +0800 Message-ID: <01cd01c25096$b6845ec0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> From: "James Seng" To: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , "Dave Crocker" Cc: References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:32:55 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL, X_RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,FUDGE_MULTIHOP_RELAY version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave, I concur with Paul. The authors and the co-chairs have been working with the ADs to address these issues. We have several emails discussion on the drafts. Any non-editorial changes (e.g. the bidi & unicode 3.2) was and will be bought to the group again. The feeling I get from these discussion is that IESG is trying its best to make sure the document got things right, rather then finding faults with the draft. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" To: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" Cc: Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? > At 10:38 AM 8/30/2002 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > >The sky is not falling, Dave. > >A new draft that we believe meets the IESG's request for clarifications > >has already been turned into the Internet Drafts repository but has not > >been announced by the IETF Secretariat yet. > > > Paul, it would be far more helpful to see responses to the particulars, > rather than this sort of dismissive, handwaving condescension. > > It is absolutely fine for my concerns to be unwarranted. > > What is not fine is the continuing failure to address those concerns, with > explanations that make clear why they are not warranted. > > d/ > > > ---------- > Dave Crocker > TribalWise, Inc. > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 > > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 00:45:29 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA15492 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l04O-0005wj-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:41:12 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l04G-0005wY-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:41:04 -0700 Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15324; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:52:22 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@jay.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1.3 (Beta) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:39:49 -0700 To: "James Seng" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Cc: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , In-Reply-To: <01cd01c25096$b6845ec0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,MAY_BE_FORGED,NO_MX_FOR_FROM, MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3 version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: * Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk James, At 10:32 AM 8/31/2002 +0800, James Seng wrote: >I concur with Paul. The authors and the co-chairs have been working with >the ADs to address these issues. There seems to be a basic disparity of view about IETF process, here. Comments in a working group forum are not simply one-way input for a design team to take in and privately decide whether it wishes to incorporate. Comments are for public discussion, review, and acceptance or rejection. >We have several emails discussion on the drafts. These concerns were posted two months ago and no one, on that long list of folks working diligently on this specification, has publicly responded to the details of those concerns. If I am incorrect please point to the place in the working group archive that shows otherwise. >The feeling I get from these discussion is that IESG is trying its best to >make sure the document got things right, rather then finding faults with >the draft. James, presumably you are not directing the "rather than" comment at me. If you were directing it at me, I would be very confused, since I made a point of submitting extensive text that attempts to correct the concerns I have raised. Please forgive my sensitivity on this matter, but the responses from chairs and authors have been problematic, since you and they are preferring to dismiss these concerns, rather than respond to them. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker TribalWise, Inc. tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 02:00:02 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17014 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:00:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l1E5-0007r5-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:55:17 -0700 Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.74.60]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l1Dt-0007qb-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:55:05 -0700 Received: from xbe-lon-303.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7V5rL8e024810; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:53:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xfe-ams-301.cisco.com ([144.254.75.88]) by xbe-lon-303.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 06:54:20 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.9] ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:54:19 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:39:18 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Dave Crocker , James Seng cc: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Message-ID: <27978011.1030779558@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com><"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2002 05:54:19.0467 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8FD39B0:01C250B2] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2002-08-30 21.39 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 10:32 AM 8/31/2002 +0800, James Seng wrote: >> I concur with Paul. The authors and the co-chairs have been working with >> the ADs to address these issues. > > There seems to be a basic disparity of view about IETF process, here. > Comments in a working group forum are not simply one-way input for a > design team to take in and privately decide whether it wishes to > incorporate. Comments are for public discussion, review, and acceptance > or rejection. Dave, not at this time in the process. All documents have been handed over from the wg to the AD. We have also passed last call. When the document is in the lap of the AD, i.e. the wg chairs have passed the document to the IESG, the comments follow a different path than before. Comments during and after last call is to go to the AD. In this case, we as document editors get request for changes from the AD, we implement them, and report back to the mailing list what the changes are. So, if you had issues during last call which you find are not implemented, you should rise the issue with the AD in question. As AD myself (for Applications Area), I find this being the _only_ way possible to work. It can not happen that the IESG work on comments received during last call. Normally about 50% of the (very few unfortunately) is only sent to the IESG so the wg chair or document editors have absolutely no clue the comments have come in. So, during the lifetime of the document, either the wg chair or the AD is responsible for the document. The hand over is when the wg chair go to the AD and claim the document is ready for last call. paf From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 02:02:18 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17489 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l1Dw-0007qr-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:55:08 -0700 Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.74.60]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l1Dt-0007qc-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:55:05 -0700 Received: from xbe-lon-303.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7V5rL8g024810; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:53:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xfe-ams-301.cisco.com ([144.254.75.88]) by xbe-lon-303.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 06:54:22 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.9] ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:54:21 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:41:45 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Dave Crocker , James Seng cc: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Message-ID: <27986811.1030779705@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com><"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2002 05:54:21.0670 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA4D6060:01C250B2] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2002-08-30 21.39 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: >> We have several emails discussion on the drafts. > > These concerns were posted two months ago and no one, on that long list > of folks working diligently on this specification, has publicly responded > to the details of those concerns. If I am incorrect please point to the > place in the working group archive that shows otherwise. Were those concernes yours? I can not see you starting a thread on this mailing list since May 27, and that is three months ago. Can you send me the Message-ID with the list of issues? paf From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 02:23:54 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21956 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l1ZK-0008L0-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:14 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l1ZC-0008Kp-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:06 -0700 Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA17446; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:28:19 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830230335.032c36e0@jay.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@jay.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1.3 (Beta) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:05:25 -0700 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Cc: James Seng , "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <27978011.1030779558@localhost> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,MAY_BE_FORGED,NO_MX_FOR_FROM, MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3 version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: * Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id CAA21956 At 07:39 AM 8/31/2002 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote: >So, if you had issues during last call which you find are not implemented, >you should rise the issue with the AD in question. Patrik, In that case it is a good thing that my original posting on this thread was in response to the AD's status report. It is a pity that others did not wait for him to respond. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker TribalWise, Inc. tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 03:05:40 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27233 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:05:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l2C4-000984-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:57:16 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l2Bw-00097t-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:57:08 -0700 Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18169; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:08:25 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830233821.02644ee0@jay.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@jay.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1.3 (Beta) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:45:43 -0700 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Cc: James Seng , "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <27986811.1030779705@localhost> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,MAY_BE_FORGED,NO_MX_FOR_FROM, MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3 version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: * Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id DAA27233 At 07:41 AM 8/31/2002 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote: >--On 2002-08-30 21.39 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: >Were those concernes yours? I can not see you starting a thread on this >mailing list since May 27, and that is three months ago. > >Can you send me the Message-ID with the list of issues? d/ ---------- Dave Crocker TribalWise, Inc. tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 04:56:07 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28784 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l3sP-000C9S-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:45:05 -0700 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l3sK-000C8u-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:45:00 -0700 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17l3ru-0008Kx-00; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:44:36 +0000 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:44:30 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , Dave Crocker cc: James Seng , idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Message-ID: <2309179.1030769070@localhost> In-Reply-To: <27978011.1030779558@localhost> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol. com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> <27978011.1030779558@localhost> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0b1 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id EAA28784 --On Saturday, August 31, 2002 7:39 AM +0200 Patrik Fältström wrote: > --On 2002-08-30 21.39 -0700 Dave Crocker > wrote: > >> At 10:32 AM 8/31/2002 +0800, James Seng wrote: >>> I concur with Paul. The authors and the co-chairs have been >>> working with the ADs to address these issues. >> >> There seems to be a basic disparity of view about IETF >> process, here. Comments in a working group forum are not >> simply one-way input for a design team to take in and >> privately decide whether it wishes to incorporate. Comments >> are for public discussion, review, and acceptance or >> rejection. > > Dave, not at this time in the process. All documents have been > handed over from the wg to the AD. We have also passed last > call. > > When the document is in the lap of the AD, i.e. the wg chairs > have passed the document to the IESG, the comments follow a > different path than before. >... > Comments during and after last call is to go to the AD. > > In this case, we as document editors get request for changes > from the AD, we implement them, and report back to the mailing > list what the changes are. > > So, if you had issues during last call which you find are not > implemented, you should rise the issue with the AD in question. >... Patrik, I agree with you that this is a reasonable way to proceed. However, I trust that the results of the rewriting process will be circulated back to the WG and last-called again, and possibly run back through an additional IETF Last Call. It seems to me that it is appropriate for IESG and document editors to "tune" a document and then advance it without consulting the WG that produced it iff either * the changes are not substantive or * they clearly represent WG (and, for standards-track material, IETF) consensus Given the nature of Dave's comments (with which I still largely concur), I cannot picture a non-substantive change that would satisfy those concerns (although one might be possible). And it is unclear to me how you would determine the existence of the appropriate consensus in this complex area without some relative of a Last Call. best, john From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 05:13:30 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA29025 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l4DC-000Cc6-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:06:34 -0700 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l4D8-000Cbv-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:06:31 -0700 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17l4Cq-0008Of-00; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:06:14 +0000 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:06:10 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: James Seng cc: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , Dave Crocker , idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Message-ID: <3609004.1030770370@localhost> In-Reply-To: <01cd01c25096$b6845ec0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol. com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <01cd01c25096$b6845ec0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0b1 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:32 AM +0800 James Seng wrote: > I concur with Paul. The authors and the co-chairs have been > working with the ADs to address these issues. We have several > emails discussion on the drafts. Any non-editorial changes > (e.g. the bidi & unicode 3.2) was and will be bought to the > group again. James, It seems to me that Dave (and I) have raised two sorts of issues which are very different in character than, e.g., bidi and unicode 3.2. One has to do with the _style_ of the documents, e.g., to paraphrase Dave (I hope accurately), whether they specify a protocol or outline an implementation. That is somewhat a matter of taste, and you could legitimately argue that it is an editorial matter, as long as the specification is complete and unambiguous. The other issues go directly to the questions of completeness and ambiguity. They are, by definition, substantive rather than editorial unless there is very clear consensus within the IETF about what the answers are to any questions that are unresolved by the text and the text merely needs to be clarified to reflect that consensus. To be specific about this, (i) If there is any question at all about how a given codepoint or character is to be interpreted, or whether it is permitted, in any context, then that question must be resolved. Without such a resolution, the document would contain "known deficiencies", which makes it inappropriate for standardization. (ii) If there is a substantive claim that the document cannot be implemented in an interoperable way without out-of-band profiling or oral tradition --and I think Dave has made exactly that claim, although in different language-- then either * the document must be fixed to reflect that fact (and, I would think, re-Last-Called through the whole IETF process, since introducing such profiling in a standards track protocol is a very serious step), or * the document must be fixed to eliminate the ambiguity/ choices, or * the documents should be published as Experimental, not standards track, until we better understand just what profiling issues are involved, how the profiles should be specified, and what impact on interoperability profiling would cause, or * someone needs to come up with a persuasive case that Dave (and I) have misread and misinterpreted the document. And, procedurally, I believe that case needs to persuade the members of the WG and other concerned parties in the IETF who are interested enough to study the issues, not just the co-chairs, editors, and AD. Again, given that these documents (or some approximation to them) made it through Last Call, I think that the co-chairs, editors, and IESG trying to work through these issues to see if a solution can be found that satisfies the IESG is quite reasonable. But that solution then needs to be cycled back through the system to be sure it still has WG and IETF consensus. john From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 05:44:30 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA29405 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:44:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l4hA-000DIy-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:37:32 -0700 Received: from smtp26.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.101.225]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l4h7-000DIm-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:37:29 -0700 Received: from JAMESSONYVAIO (bb-203-125-86-3.singnet.com.sg [203.125.86.3]) by smtp26.singnet.com.sg (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7V9bIOX006545; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:37:18 +0800 Message-ID: <026501c250d1$ff6b3c40$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> From: "James Seng" To: "John C Klensin" Cc: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , "Dave Crocker" , References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol. com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <01cd01c25096$b6845ec0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> <3609004.1030770370@localhost> Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:37:18 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL, X_RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,FUDGE_MULTIHOP_RELAY version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John, > It seems to me that Dave (and I) have raised two sorts of issues > which are very different in character than, e.g., bidi and > unicode 3.2. One has to do with the _style_ of the documents, > e.g., to paraphrase Dave (I hope accurately), whether they > specify a protocol or outline an implementation. That is > somewhat a matter of taste, and you could legitimately argue > that it is an editorial matter, as long as the specification is > complete and unambiguous. The draft in questions have gone through the working group last call. Regardless of the merits of these issues, it should have been bought up before or during the last call. After the co-chairs move the documents for IESG consideration, we (as the group) have very little control over what happen next. As Patrik said, the IESG/ADs would make their own comments. Sometimes, they reject the draft (for various reasons such as technical failure). If we are lucky, they may have minor editorial changes. But typically, it is along the vague line between editorial to substain technical changes. These are done to make sure the "specification is complete and unambiguous". My note is to clarify to the group (not just to Dave), that we are in this process with the ADs. Most of the stuff going on are minor, request for additional paragraph for clarification. But a few are substained enough to warrant another partial wg last call (which is what we did). > (i) If there is any question at all about how a given codepoint > or character is to be interpreted, or whether it is permitted, > in any context, then that question must be resolved. Without > such a resolution, the document would contain "known > deficiencies", which makes it inappropriate for standardization. > > (ii) If there is a substantive claim that the document cannot be > implemented in an interoperable way without out-of-band > profiling or oral tradition --and I think Dave has made exactly > that claim, although in different language-- then either These are technical failure. If it happen, the IESG would kill the whole process and and throw the draft back to us. So far, they havent. The ADs have done some write up of their concerns, and the authors is working on the changes to be made. I have not seen all the changes myself yet so we dont know if it is substainable to warrant another last call. If it is, we will. So lets not jump into conclusion. The short answer is "yes, we are still moving. be patient" -James Seng From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 09:04:50 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02284 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l7kh-000Hnd-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:53:23 -0700 Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.74.60]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l7kZ-000HnS-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:53:15 -0700 Received: from xbe-lon-303.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7VCpBS4011973; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:51:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xfe-ams-301.cisco.com ([144.254.75.88]) by xbe-lon-303.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:52:10 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.9] ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:52:09 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:02:03 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: John C Klensin , Dave Crocker cc: James Seng , idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Message-ID: <29355946.1030802523@localhost> In-Reply-To: <2309179.1030769070@localhost> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com><"Your message with ID"<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> <27978011.1030779558@localhost> <2309179.1030769070@localhost> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2002 12:52:09.0639 (UTC) FILETIME=[37F9E370:01C250ED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2002-08-31 04.44 -0400 John C Klensin wrote: > I agree with you that this is a reasonable way to proceed. > However, I trust that the results of the rewriting process will > be circulated back to the WG and last-called again, and possibly > run back through an additional IETF Last Call. I see this being of the decisions an AD _always_ have to make after getting comments, and a new document, back after issues have been rised. I.e. not my call. paf From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 09:19:52 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02558 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l7zt-000IEA-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 06:09:05 -0700 Received: from [209.124.80.254] (helo=service.altserver.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l7zk-000IDy-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 06:08:56 -0700 Received: from lns16m-11-246.w.club-internet.fr ([212.195.122.246] helo=mine.jefsey.com) by service.altserver.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17l7ze-0008DV-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 06:08:51 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020831142253.03198200@mail.jefsey.com> X-Sender: jefsey+jefsey.com@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:10:39 +0200 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? In-Reply-To: <026501c250d1$ff6b3c40$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol. com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <01cd01c25096$b6845ec0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> <3609004.1030770370@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3F2A761D; boundary="=======7617DAF=======" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - service.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ops.ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [0 0] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,X_ANTIABUSE,DOUBLE_CAPSWORD version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --=======7617DAF======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3F2A761D; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11:37 31/08/02, James Seng said: >My note is to clarify to the group (not just to Dave), that we are in this >process with the ADs. Most of the stuff going on are minor, request for >additional paragraph for clarification. But a few are substained enough to >warrant another partial wg last call (which is what we did). May I offer a remark for this AD tuning? As a new comer I read the proposed text as will do reader. I am confused by two wordings and uncertain about others. Dave proposes a lexical: I think the idea helpful (as long as it respects the text). 1. would it not be a good occasion of getting rid of the odd phrase about domain/host names and to introduce a stable wording such as "internet name"and "international internet names" or "multilingual internet names" which corresponds to the compromise we actually use? I am concerned about: - the confusion it adds about what is a domain name, specialy in this complex context. We try to simplify and stabilize in discussing only strings, not what international lawyers may do with them. In making clear we only talk about alphanum pointers to IP addresses we migh help disjointing the legal and the technical aspects? - I am concerned about using a concept (international) for another (multilingual) when the international concept may become another issue with national DNS views. 2. I am confused about the implications of the proposed change of part 7. If I am right the target is to stick to the current common status of the DNS, whatever it may be. Could we not just define a "DNS character set" (as "0-9 a-Z -." today) and say that it can extend with DNS specifications. Would it not be clearer and be more compact? 3. is "IESG--" meant to stay, or is it temporary? Would this wording not add to the root management problems, 2 extra characters making a difference for many international TLD? jfc liaison to Eurolinc --=======7617DAF=======-- From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 11:23:51 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05044 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l9vB-000L3R-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:12:21 -0700 Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.74.60]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17l9v8-000L3G-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:12:18 -0700 Received: from xbe-lon-303.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7VFAFD0017116; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:10:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xfe-ams-301.cisco.com ([144.254.75.88]) by xbe-lon-303.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:11:14 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.9] ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:11:12 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:07:47 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , John C Klensin , Dave Crocker cc: James Seng , idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Message-ID: <30024612.1030813667@localhost> In-Reply-To: <29355946.1030802523@localhost> References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Yourmessage withID"<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com> <27978011.1030779558@localhost> <2309179.1030769070@localhost> <29355946.1030802523@localhost> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2002 15:11:13.0182 (UTC) FILETIME=[A51D83E0:01C25100] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.31 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id LAA05044 --On 2002-08-31 14.02 +0200 Patrik Fältström wrote: > --On 2002-08-31 04.44 -0400 John C Klensin wrote: > >> I agree with you that this is a reasonable way to proceed. >> However, I trust that the results of the rewriting process will >> be circulated back to the WG and last-called again, and possibly >> run back through an additional IETF Last Call. > > I see this being of the decisions an AD _always_ have to make after > getting comments, and a new document, back after issues have been rised. s/being of the/being one of the/ paf From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Aug 31 13:30:45 2002 Received: from psg.com (smmsp@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07881 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17lBwH-000O23-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:21:37 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17lBw8-000O1r-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:21:29 -0700 Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA30691; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:32:48 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.1.2.2.20020831091908.03297870@jay.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@jay.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1.3 (Beta) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:13:28 -0700 To: John C Klensin From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status? Cc: James Seng , "Paul Hoffman / IMC" , idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3609004.1030770370@localhost> References: <01cd01c25096$b6845ec0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <"Your message with ID" <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol. com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com> <5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com> <01cd01c25096$b6845ec0$8e00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,MAY_BE_FORGED,NO_MX_FOR_FROM, MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3 version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: * Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk John's comments were so nicely done, the only reason I am responding is because he cited me a number of times and seemed to be seeking some confirmation about those citations. (And, of course, I will fail to limit myself to those citations...) At 05:06 AM 8/31/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >It seems to me that Dave (and I) have raised two sorts of issues >which are very different in character than, e.g., bidi and >unicode 3.2. One has to do with the _style_ of the documents, >e.g., to paraphrase Dave (I hope accurately), whether they >specify a protocol or outline an implementation. correct. >(i) If there is any question at all about how a given codepoint >... >(ii) If there is a substantive claim that the document cannot be >implemented in an interoperable way without out-of-band >profiling or oral tradition --and I think Dave has made exactly >that claim, although in different language-- then either > > * the document must be fixed to reflect that fact (and, >... > * the document must be fixed to eliminate the ambiguity/ >... > * the documents should be published as Experimental, not >... > * someone needs to come up with a persuasive case that > Dave (and I) have misread and misinterpreted the > document. And, procedurally, I believe that case needs Yes, these are the set of available choices. Personally, I believe that publishing as Experimental is unnecessary and that it would be disastrous. Experimental makes sense when a technology is not well understood. That is not the problem, here. The problem, here, about making difficult decisions, not about understanding them. The current specification has not made at least one essential, difficult decision. As a consequence, someone registering an IDN for use with email or the web cannot know the correct set of characters available to them. The Internet needs workable IDN now. (Actually, it needed it a few years ago.) So, we need to make the difficult decisions, to make IDN workable. And we need to publish as Proposed. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker TribalWise, Inc. tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850