From nobody Tue Dec 4 12:20:03 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B1C130DFD; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:19:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ID0hNCroNoj4; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:19:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97D6B12F1AB; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:19:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1gUHAY-0001AD-Ea; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:19:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:19:40 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: idna-update@ietf.org cc: precis@ietf.org, i18n-discuss@iab.org, ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: [EAI] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 20:19:49 -0000 Hi. Just a heads-up to lower the odds of anyone's being surprised or unintentionally left out of the conversation. Please do not start a discussion of it on any of the mailing lists copied. An IETF Last Call was initiated yesterday on draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05, whose main intention was to follow the model of RFC 6452 and bring the IANA registry of IDNA code points into line with Unicode 11.0. In addition to a few comments on the IETF list, a discussion started on the I18Nrp list, the list set up for the BOF held during IETF 102 in Montreal to try to figure out how to progress the several i18n documents that have been stalled for some time. Because that draft is very much specific to IDNA2008, I would have expected the discussion to be on the idna-update@ietf.org list, but I suppose we should all be grateful that we don't have either parallel discussions on multiple lists or extensive cross-posting. (Patrik, it would probably be wise for -06 to explicitly identify the mailing list on which discussion would be helpful). 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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp ) 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) From nobody Tue Dec 4 13:04:59 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81272130E9B; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:04:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYD5Se-OgnTQ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:04:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot1-x336.google.com (mail-ot1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE83D130FA5; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x336.google.com with SMTP id n8so12709783otl.6; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 13:04:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=67eZchZ3BTuOQTWviHEvwYhRZEaY+zrYG2UcRtoM60U=; b=NJiElB5OW3vVrOZVhACG12ng6l7x55QooAMm/1OiPl3w3fU3OrNZ+beOAykS540+PS bK0HVj/RNyWBhLwne7pIVnLXminDaUrbUpG3piGqeowZLOR8kQ0wmQ+TjEJ+tcpBdHYD DrXaYCpoOaq4KqbkJduvV6EgdA1ctNGeJNxxko503y4GHwCqRuprv76jxs36M/PHLsBs uxkJ5UxCFLtX7RqMbY6Imvqsq6dsOldhHv71g/28nfrXq60WI9RGO/xHzBDxkFhHB9wx 6HyDiJKq/Mkwpz1PzqSqI4EQi/ba0FgJOOYPBDu5aKDLkdxkbmeGSwxh6pVElV/ImflK dRFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=67eZchZ3BTuOQTWviHEvwYhRZEaY+zrYG2UcRtoM60U=; b=EFvylkiH+joTYjpgDVxzcR/vmtIqiOqRdVy6XWY0664zi38A8OO9vT1PAdH0kePhoo oWTsoguscoVmZpFDheopE/uGXsDEVCOO2/T/F/CIjeqiphpTHbJcWFo3dG5Al28lJzXR +zah9gGpMxILjp9FmPKnC46KpU6437LmW8g43xMWRCROLnKTqUA99hMio3Hd7pruo7Qx lA0PrdEkbCLKZA2B+1fgpsp0w5k58Vzq2D+U460AoT7HUku8mSM2OiRo2h0zFGK3HMzB r8oMyJqa+liW6lRoKfvCnFLIlNNE2k35a+WgpT5qnF6hURWqZLkN0GtcCqQrsrkxpt5m aCpw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWb0ScYZCxY/gC64cdnnZ0TDfWISlFASy2rQ1p+X7XQQe02KrDHi GPlZTEC5w4/r6fdBVvsbF+vPO1/8EDH3B3jFDGy83w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XaFAotIcTxgi5Y+y/9HbRkmPVar60Yd8Tde/XnctrSzi5SR6+YsoXC7MC0Q8hYOAU4aV4EOBkx/B4tIPl1FQc= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:59c9:: with SMTP id u9mr14453122otg.75.1543957486891; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 13:04:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> In-Reply-To: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> From: Ted Hardie Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:04:20 -0800 Message-ID: To: John C Klensin Cc: idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, i18n-discuss@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008df606057c389d7c" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 21:04:52 -0000 --0000000000008df606057c389d7c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp ) > > 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 > I18n-discuss@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss > --0000000000008df606057c389d7c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.=C2=A0 I have al= so 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.=C2=A0 =

We charter directorates now as advisory bodie= s to the ADs, and the ADs bear the responsibility for the related decisions= (taking or not taking the advice as they see fit).=C2=A0 Since the ADs are= selected by the NomCom, how they derive that authority and its limits are = well known.=C2=A0 What you describe below departs from that, and unless it = is made clear what authority is being granted and how the community is bein= g 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 <john-ietf@jck.com> 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.=C2=A0 =C2=A0It was described as a "directorate" becaus= e 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.=C2=A0 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.


=C2=A0
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp )

Happy reading and reviewing.
And apologies for not getting this note out when the discussion
first started up.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 john
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (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
I18n-discuss@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss
--0000000000008df606057c389d7c-- From nobody Tue Dec 4 13:30:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EEA7130EE4; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:30:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.878 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qL8TjcIPOeIv; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A3F9130E51; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:29:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.24] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (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 ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.24] From: Ben Campbell Message-Id: <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> 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 , i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org To: Ted Hardie References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 21:30:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3093192E-4AA2-4A43-99A0-ACB31F2F44BE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EFDBB8EC-3D12-4774-B7A4-B68E5BAC1ABC" --Apple-Mail=_EFDBB8EC-3D12-4774-B7A4-B68E5BAC1ABC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Ted, I=E2=80=99d like to understand your objection better. (Please don=E2=80=99= t take this as disagreement. Or agreement, for that matter :-) ) How do you see things like =E2=80=9Cadvise=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Ceducate=E2=80= =9D and =E2=80=9Cinform=E2=80=9D as being a grant of authority beyond = that of a directorate? Individual participants can and do those things = regularly; so I=E2=80=99m 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? Thanks! Ben. > On Dec 4, 2018, at 3:04 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: >=20 > John, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Since this amounts to the early stage of an appeal, I have recused = myself from further discussion within the IESG on this topic. >=20 > On the more technical topic of the appropriate status (Standards Track = or Informational) for this document, I will follow up as you suggest. >=20 > Ted >=20 > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:19 PM John C Klensin > wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > At least until Patrik or the ADs suggest otherwise, the > discussion of draft-faltstrom-unicode11 is on I18Nrp > (subscription and archive information at > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp = ) >=20 > Happy reading and reviewing. > And apologies for not getting this note out when the discussion > first started up. >=20 > 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) >=20 > _______________________________________________ > I18n-discuss mailing list > I18n-discuss@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss = > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis --Apple-Mail=_EFDBB8EC-3D12-4774-B7A4-B68E5BAC1ABC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Ted,

I=E2=80=99d = like to understand your objection better. (Please don=E2=80=99t take = this as disagreement. Or agreement, for that matter :-) )

How do you see things = like =E2=80=9Cadvise=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Ceducate=E2=80=9D and = =E2=80=9Cinform=E2=80=9D as being a grant of authority beyond that of a = directorate? Individual participants can and do those things regularly; = so I=E2=80=99m 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?


Thanks!

Ben.

On Dec 4, 2018, at 3:04 PM, Ted = Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> 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 <john-ietf@jck.com> = 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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp )

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
I18n-discuss@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss
_______________________________________________
precis = mailing list
precis@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis

= --Apple-Mail=_EFDBB8EC-3D12-4774-B7A4-B68E5BAC1ABC-- --Apple-Mail=_3093192E-4AA2-4A43-99A0-ACB31F2F44BE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEExW9rpd7ez4DexOFOgFZKbJXz1A0FAlwG8dQACgkQgFZKbJXz 1A3Xqg//Vl0r51/FbSIreNAjH0Qpnuli1DDR0ushLgneQMlSO5AZwXi4a4hfyAOp yoaZw9+hO+2egVjM3/O7nHwy2ulD3014YpamfPM+ItU3pOlvKiDSaSId5SrtHZMo 0k6X9GI+vV7gxOkpERA8QouihxEIdPwNbipOavsT3YKckrMpz3xnIqD4c4WcDB7U WDQ+pTUMlegaxLQq+ZdPRkFdAGjLgmDT6uhVY1jTlIgMSS1wcnUzcBxds9W4GMqm 4gwhNbf+/ulPl6rgBm2Uzq4wS2hwdJ3mSkNT9uR4CfRwv7Al7rPhPZAhlNYXnxTH M7FhZccsSDPI2FBNrThBTJuJ2o9LooN+yLoq+DfU9rtMs3Q3t6MetB1Ug+G6gygh D6efBUWQ9wNRcloMCNOc6DKlCaRlSgI0fVgrkOjhsBleRflaXG6v76Z7Fx9sUgfx eajWl85KqEfzXeTF7hRcPygTlnkvxa0FWNE+IwkWGPiVX4/BvVbKZemRy9gw9qDm 7aYxPbp4Pm11HOz+57Fu26X3V7XqUqXngo4at9qQpANq+zAXGT10sVnju/WDVfxB y6Uz20ACfNO2yzvY2KywT1c1+G7xFbqgq25Y3BgSIA+tdXFuhlr8FyJJqTJ15V/x siwK+kv3A+qKknmEusEMbSPzvwkRl2o1C5Xgvc6ONMtuoZqxCCk= =tJvX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_3093192E-4AA2-4A43-99A0-ACB31F2F44BE-- From nobody Tue Dec 4 14:03:03 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F97130E97; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:02:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j6PWSDY1O8LV; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:02:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A9951200B3; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:02:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id u16so16734851otk.8; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:02:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o56rKKMJZI41EcfZCKUuBWYBwkBIdX+iAGondqAeHxc=; b=NKZKMKBcqAL8QUJpD2x2W3JqZ/ZXuPw5GaiJ6maVTM6StJBB5oYirWSJsa++9qQQhn 8nyrD/HSUY4uPjjZpZzkLOVrvbGcWrB5pgwlnO0S7BXdeqHyvaHvZ/p0DTyC2i8kg1/B v8IMkZJGSmshiXgO1CQMF6Tq0slAwnJPQznELe7yl4+EOxCiFiUGRWekAgeQrfZNp4s4 4lSuiszbGWXmPNusmnszCiSQXE0lJAEq/FKSdOe0mb+vXwkq+FA79L7K0hSSmKzEFwJT 78rmLShJ79AQnJMDxZnObwoc1DHCaho+FdgvzLUU6h9JcXT4kMCEYQVm3cz5qwQImBYP RfIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o56rKKMJZI41EcfZCKUuBWYBwkBIdX+iAGondqAeHxc=; b=YZl7UkFB9VzqNJV45QawPTyhnqr9/NC6QD7OX92Pa/aFqyuof0NeBSm8tr/oq/m50N p3Ws6UO9azGxej3ebvxfkzmXCbQmUncTdeAQcz/x6wnmh8XelygzrripXomnqxdtyPKx QA1awsNTjnZbccnoBcN/sKuCLMi2hE8Nc/BIOOV0qUXNndAdq1eUE3TtIVDDpjhA1d5l uSmS8+FowZi2aO2rqqFJ4Z8Oy7cLFXGKtOS9KhAhNgBjqepz4EbQZK6/n4Ofvgtpd0ph LOGzDKafwVKeKNd2ZEgA6nXk3CIpWSVhN1wopGJcGOkZrBiRCJrdnZB4LICGfnVwHn4I shTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWY8UCAn/u3N1AfnUI7H5KsCQkjazQC8pypr5yFDv0+29oksj50b WDbAPuPD70QMjIocyBikSQI5mpy4Y90LPtvJUQw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XGMB9GMZ/pB7tWG/8DPEdklC9Ne6Lz0EeMrYEsNJf+A1dBO3aWC1IkvspE5TioyfTFega6l3JF6Q2s5YIlxM8= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:72a:: with SMTP id 39mr15031719ote.134.1543960975251; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:02:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> From: Ted Hardie Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:02:27 -0800 Message-ID: To: Ben Campbell Cc: John C Klensin , i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a1e70057c396d8f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 22:03:00 -0000 --0000000000007a1e70057c396d8f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ben, On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:29 PM Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi Ted, > > I=E2=80=99d like to understand your objection better. (Please don=E2=80= =99t take this as > disagreement. Or agreement, for that matter :-) ) > > How do you see things like =E2=80=9Cadvise=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Ceducate=E2= =80=9D and =E2=80=9Cinform=E2=80=9D as being a > grant of authority beyond that of a directorate? Individual participants > can and do those things regularly; so I=E2=80=99m confused as why doing i= t 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? > 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. That seems to me to require discussion. Even the EDU team, which has a remit to educate the community is defined as a directorate serving the GEN area, and why this cannot be not an area director led activity is not clear to me. If we need something beyond that, okay, but I believe that requires community discussion about how such groups are chartered, how their membership is selected, and what the limits of their authority should be. regards, Ted Hardie > > > Thanks! > > Ben. > > 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 hear= d > calls for a directorate, not for a body with different characteristics > sharing the name. I have also notified them that I object to the formati= on > of a body with a different remit to the usual "advise the ADs" unless a > community discussion, charter, and discussion of how membership is select= ed > 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 t= he > 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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp ) >> >> 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 >> I18n-discuss@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis > > > --0000000000007a1e70057c396d8f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ben,

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:29 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
Hi Ted,

I=E2=80=99d like to understand your objectio= n better. (Please don=E2=80=99t take this as disagreement. Or agreement, fo= r that matter :-) )

How do you see things like =E2= =80=9Cadvise=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Ceducate=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cinform=E2=80= =9D as being a grant of authority beyond that of a directorate?=C2=A0 Indiv= idual participants can and do those things regularly; so I=E2=80=99m confus= ed 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 c= oncerned such advice would be given greater weight because of the directora= te?

Given that the first sugges= tion here was that a document could not go through last call until it had b= een reviewed by the group and John's message seemed to indicate that it= s 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 doc= uments.=C2=A0 That seems to me to require discussion.=C2=A0 Even the EDU te= am, which has a remit to educate the community is defined as a directorate = serving the GEN area, and why this cannot be not an area director led activ= ity is not clear to me.

If we need something beyon= d that, okay, but I believe that requires community discussion about how su= ch groups are chartered, how their membership is selected, and what the lim= its of their authority should be.

regards,

Ted Hardie
=C2=A0


Thanks!

Ben.

On Dec 4, 2018, at 3:04 PM, Ted H= ardie <ted.ietf@= gmail.com> wrote:

John,

= This is to advise you that I have notified the IESG that I strongly disagre= e with this conclusion on the scope of an i18n directorate; I heard calls f= or a directorate, not for a body with different characteristics sharing the= name.=C2=A0 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 select= ed takes place.=C2=A0

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).= =C2=A0 Since the ADs are selected by the NomCom, how they derive that autho= rity and its limits are well known.=C2=A0 What you describe below departs f= rom that, and unless it is made clear what authority is being granted and h= ow the community is being consulted, I think it is outside of our process.<= /div>

Since this amounts to the early stage of an appeal= , I have recused myself from further discussion within the IESG on this top= ic.

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 <john-iet= f@jck.com> 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.=C2=A0 =C2=A0It was described as a "directorate" becaus= e 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.=C2=A0 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.


=C2=A0
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp )

Happy reading and reviewing.
And apologies for not getting this note out when the discussion
first started up.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 john
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (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
I18n-discuss@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
<= a href=3D"mailto:precis@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">precis@ietf.org
= = https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis

--0000000000007a1e70057c396d8f-- From nobody Tue Dec 4 14:55:03 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C0E130E73; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:54:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-3L4DoHMKJG; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE18B128D0C; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5206F62280; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:54:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQjkmIagOOZ1; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:54:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from [172.16.1.76] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (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" , i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:54:44 -0600 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.2r5568) Message-ID: <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> In-Reply-To: References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 22:54:55 -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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iesg. 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. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/ All connections to the world are tenuous at best From nobody Tue Dec 4 15:38:23 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36C9130DC8; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:38:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SaPW7A7LXlPZ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:38:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E32F212E7C1; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id c206so15964904oib.0; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:38:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yz4X05uHxfmIxvCJtPvDL/U4A4zg0WHufwuDr0BoNKk=; b=jCL1LJG/RfdXOMUp2TNeL2uRACj/dK9L3r9rF3u64VQ3viLlTcOZTmc8188ZswkXfS XzNhPbZuCUeufewSIN3CFAEvN6NbtYBRMytedo/thBA5msZKIr9MbEci1yWX2aP8oSlJ /Wz0k1eeXauD0ylEYAFzsh+a0PUhu2lhSdubhohHmLxmwxAXKWKOAwIzU3raT5kKGUsv lGGjBY8oG5J01F0+fnOFKh4knCZlztzcrG+4tcju8KA7MyaBkDSASMGxZe9Xl5sjeIm/ 24BGKsJyUm112SzzgerCb7FBT82hdImFAPwwOa9FRJvwru+i/ZMjiLyZ7ccaPZ1SZm06 yJDg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yz4X05uHxfmIxvCJtPvDL/U4A4zg0WHufwuDr0BoNKk=; b=fuSJJvRBlzV8rwDcms7SZm+wpkWYsO5bw+YxAb1NiflV7wmx4CL/1hywAUP/qbH1TE TPvkGNsfNGpgrDeVVWC5WSI3HRnTZCYgTGpbFdf8M/dT4WHNeatAUdqiuUvc9Q8Z6Mkt BXcsib+pqX5rGmchUW9Yy2fKTiizSGqkRd21vhuvl1sgQxgAurgml4D1mjrWnuyaUXPz x8SkDbwyAfLGsCykBQkU/T4cX4KSe/jKaN22tLdh9wEe8uacB5cENvY6njiAFdJDIO1b 5eJ5Nb24zO9zkcPqxnHryd7bq6HLReNeWsSBQYSuTYyIQ0SE5UVdmFIk9iJyFPVxSlWq rGQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaiROZokxe5AGPYOiDecAWsC2rdCkRhSo2TzjhvQNzctwwzBnSi FWJQTRDDy1CvNiURFmNTM8n6Kx1cRR2JY7LL2BxDSRD1 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XfiRlCPEeM7W60LgnyNUi9XBfMry/F0QsuMpcXlYAeZN3n/hEYNAxyFm5YzbNwxSdE4LBtuXCE5sFphb+eCJk= X-Received: by 2002:aca:c4d8:: with SMTP id u207mr13225849oif.30.1543966684823; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:38:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> In-Reply-To: <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> From: Ted Hardie Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:37:37 -0800 Message-ID: To: resnick@episteme.net Cc: Ben Campbell , John C Klensin , i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb459e057c3ac16e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:38:09 -0000 --000000000000cb459e057c3ac16e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Howdy Pete, Please re-read John's message, which includes this: " 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. " 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. 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. Given that assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in what it is instead. 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. regards, Ted On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:54 PM Pete Resnick wrote: > 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iesg. 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. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/ > All connections to the world are tenuous at best > --000000000000cb459e057c3ac16e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Howdy Pete,


P= lease re-read John's message, which includes this:

=
" 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. "

As I have said multiple times, I hav= e no problem with an AD requesting a review of a specific individual or set= of individuals.=C2=A0 But John's message is highlighting that this gro= up is meant to be something different than the usual directorate. That conc= erns me, especially if it is meant to have a review power beyond "advi= sing the ART ADs", which is what (ART) directorates do.=C2=A0 Soliciti= ng and receiving that advice is the state you're pointing to, and but J= ohn has asserted this is not that.=C2=A0 Given that assertion, I think the = community ought to know and have a voice in what it is instead.

I also am disappointed that the ART ADs did not simply as= k the relevant questions of the people that they would or will put on the D= irectorate, if they are seeking the usual sort of advice.=C2=A0 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.

regards,

Ted

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:54 PM Pete Resn= ick <resnick@episteme.net>= ; wrote:
On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, T= ed 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/s= tate/draft/iesg. You
will see a state between "AD Evaluation" and "Last Call Requ= ested"
called "Expert Review". At an AD's discretion, before a docum= ent is sent
for Last Call:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 An AD sometimes asks for an external review by an outside par= ty as
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 part of evaluating whether a document is ready for advancemen= t.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 MIBs, for example, are reviewed by the "MIB doctors"= ;. Other types of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 reviews may also be requested (e.g., security, operations imp= act,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 etc.). Documents stay in this state until the review is compl= ete and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 possibly until the issues raised in the review are addressed.= See
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 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.

pr

--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
--000000000000cb459e057c3ac16e-- From nobody Tue Dec 4 15:54:46 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D80130EB5; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:54:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Et9TGWQDUVBu; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CD4130DCA; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F476F63815; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:54:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NgUEOetAFoFo; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:54:30 -0600 (CST) Received: from [172.16.1.76] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D4266F6380A; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:54:30 -0600 (CST) From: "Pete Resnick" To: "Ted Hardie" Cc: "Ben Campbell" , "John C Klensin" , i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:54:29 -0600 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.2r5568) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_1E74A519-BCED-4CDD-A757-E489F427815B_=" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:54:37 -0000 --=_MailMate_1E74A519-BCED-4CDD-A757-E489F427815B_= Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed 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. > 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. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/ All connections to the world are tenuous at best --=_MailMate_1E74A519-BCED-4CDD-A757-E489F427815B_= Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Trimming a bit:

On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, Ted Hardie wrote:

H= owdy 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<= br> review of a specific individual or set of individuals. But John's messag= e
is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different than t= he
usual directorate.

Certainly to some small extent all of the directorates "a= dvise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community", as each is willin= g 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 th= at those duties get a more formal mention in the mission of the i18n dire= ctorate 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 inferr= ed 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 di= scussions of the directorate) that indicate any power to "block documents= ", let alone some other sort of special "independent authority" (beyond w= hat we already have experience with). And that seems the real basis for y= our objection. I think perhaps you're tilting at a windmill.

T= hat 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'r= e
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".

G= iven that
assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in what i= t
is instead.

If it had any additional authority, I would agree. It doe= s 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, i= f
they are seeking the usual sort of advice. There is no power in the advi= ce
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.

pr

--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

--=_MailMate_1E74A519-BCED-4CDD-A757-E489F427815B_=-- From nobody Tue Dec 4 16:09:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B12131021; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:09:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.878 X-Spam-Level: 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=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OZc_t-5ub7Z5; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3D59130FE8; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.24] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wB508uiE064761 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:08:57 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.24] From: Ben Campbell Message-Id: <921E77FB-64DA-4A09-95BB-7307099F0B43@nostrum.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_33D2BA77-35E5-468C-A032-377297E070FE"; 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 18:08:56 -0600 In-Reply-To: Cc: Ted Hardie , John C Klensin , i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org To: Pete Resnick References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:09:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_33D2BA77-35E5-468C-A032-377297E070FE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EEABB0CA-7322-408A-91DA-6057B406AC69" --Apple-Mail=_EEABB0CA-7322-408A-91DA-6057B406AC69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Responding to a couple of points, inline: > On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: >=20 > Trimming a bit: >=20 > On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, Ted Hardie wrote: >=20 > Howdy Pete, >=20 >=20 > Please re-read John's message, which includes this: >=20 > "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. " >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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: >=20 > On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote: >=20 > ...I inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an > independent authority to foster work or block documents. >=20 > 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 >=20 >=20 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. >=20 > 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". >=20 > Given that > assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in = what it > is instead. >=20 > If it had any additional authority, I would agree. It does not appear = to, and therefore I do not. >=20 > 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. >=20 > There is no power, but often there is more organization. That seems = like a legitimate reason for the pause. >=20 At the risk of putting words into Alexey=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99= s first review before the LC ended. It was Alexey=E2=80=99s 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. --Apple-Mail=_EEABB0CA-7322-408A-91DA-6057B406AC69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Responding to a couple of points, inline:

On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> 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=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99s first review before = the LC ended. It was Alexey=E2=80=99s 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.
= --Apple-Mail=_EEABB0CA-7322-408A-91DA-6057B406AC69-- --Apple-Mail=_33D2BA77-35E5-468C-A032-377297E070FE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEExW9rpd7ez4DexOFOgFZKbJXz1A0FAlwHFxgACgkQgFZKbJXz 1A0xoA/+I78Me88vhuz1r6NsPNDDEf73VWVsv4Ou0rBKvWTrHw1n9xBJyWSRfzYl /N04p0B09hdOCCSagkRuJjvv/iX9iriVLe64aHiVpGd3JyYoEZUUMc6SKuyj2my0 PKaIBkDh7COB/Bhzdn/XOghKO4oujOcBmDfu/fTayauvioxz3SgjF6Qka3GTZAE2 BvaUcZP1umMjHdroIJJEb2UgowV+y2pFdSrgkYJdhOdqvNDqQvkl+BiN46fWhC/f GkyRHIpLBkmG8HHuTrVxBGE2f0m2Ubv9ijYx1IEnpk8srIDQMTIqUQY2zZpTspwZ dgZ7kM9kq+2Dje9rNencjNRlBzg4iZ6/lWb/udtjDbiMj/QairSZPUbsPROWisTU dNV0a9djLoBLBBFKYypn5k5jNI0QwqrCucEymOjCzYUIz1T8nxqWJPmuggeRiJe+ 4wVpPfbkdrZixA8K6tNglIHzJGpK/B4bjRm5sNSAFZH/IOgynlUVqd/O19Au9bfr yGQNzvQcRGAecXsSo3PU/s4iGcL/qUjzP/hMwI6RWgYDerG+ergGjXJ6CI/qMKwS qbOkKSUL4r9C/zm/J8YbC07ZotqNWs+acqvb9GkmKvUW14Csblyy8j63eoUrNLtz R8C3bBUyowbPiiDFe9EgyzKt1hpol+R+Yj6PxCu1VRIeS1muKAw= =Ewlz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_33D2BA77-35E5-468C-A032-377297E070FE-- From nobody Tue Dec 4 16:21:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BB51200B3 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:21:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -18.958 X-Spam-Level: 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=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fmAMSgWv2yLK for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:21:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi1-x22a.google.com (mail-oi1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41037130DC9 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:21:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id y23so16034047oia.4 for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:21:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; 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; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iNVTkff7PLY1nSLCsnaxYPwZXpoln1dmdzlYwDWdBEQ=; b=LTwxNqB+JgCRU9XtBV55R4b9M0oPHS+6kIenWWsQ6NVGwkbE+6hMkZ8ISC/ZIHa2FA zSB0rCze6Clv99CqFD63HLNFwRTni0OW9hxnSCkcYymqIm5yBX7e76TGO2FsQt4aSf23 U6TdqbPkPUyf6afPLgGX3toTozp0aC60B35qp8HaWbflDenIi7zURQvTULhhqYKfoQMs NMpM2lvshgwrFYEsW6QyJpjFdOCmXG6R0+Kbb+fF4BRlwcaENzhWKUvCdx2W8jDncDgF Mnu5SaiOC7Ets47AxuvZvqMALPDHYfgXwlZDI38mTvnRW+5xTELwfJWeR5Ljv3yTR19W Mjhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaBDdXFRRcRvtEtKRMCFdTMbGr21kMWRdXXRYDfhQnXgX1FY6oI xlRrTxfF5NLzCLj6uRJl9AN+nWp5xe2fJzUtJar0Tg== 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> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> <921E77FB-64DA-4A09-95BB-7307099F0B43@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <921E77FB-64DA-4A09-95BB-7307099F0B43@nostrum.com> From: Vint Cerf Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:21:01 -0500 Message-ID: To: ben@nostrum.com Cc: resnick@episteme.net, Ted Hardie , i18n-discuss@iab.org, precis@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, John C Klensin , idna-update@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000497ab057c3b5cb0" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:21:16 -0000 --0000000000000497ab057c3b5cb0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. vint 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 t= he > 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") wi= ll > help a WG when directly solicited by the WG. The fact that those duties g= et > 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 hav= e > experience with). And that seems the real basis for your objection. I thi= nk > 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 i= t > 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, i= f > they are seeking the usual sort of advice. There is no power in the advic= e > 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=E2=80=99s mouth, I think this wa= s an > exceptional case due to the fact that the directorate creation was > imminent, but perhaps not so imminent that it could finish it=E2=80=99s f= irst > review before the LC ended. It was Alexey=E2=80=99s 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 > IDNA-UPDATE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update > --=20 New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 --0000000000000497ab057c3b5cb0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
suggestion:

set up the advisory group a= nd allow it to offer advice to the appropriate AD.
This same advi= sory group can reasonably share its findings more generally,
ther= eby "educating...." the rest of the community. No power to block = should
either explicitly or implicitly be inferred by the creatio= n of the advisory body.

vint

<= /div>
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at= 7:09 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.co= m> wrote:
Responding to a couple of po= ints, inline:

On Dec 4, 2018, at= 5:54 PM, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:

Trimming a bit:

On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, Te= d Hardie wrote:

Howdy Pe= te,


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 mess= age
is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different than the=
usual directorate.

Certainly to some small e= xtent all of the directorates "advise, inform, and perhaps even educat= e 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 fo= rmal mention in the mission of the i18n directorate doesn't give me pau= se. But what I was responding to was this part of your earlier message:

On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote:<= br>

...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 i= n John's words (or any of the discussions of the directorate) that indi= cate any power to "block documents", let alone some other sort of= special "independent authority" (beyond what we already have exp= erience with). And that seems the real basis for your objection. I think pe= rhaps you're tilting at a windmill


=

As an ART AD, my expectation is that= the directorates only power to block documents =C2=A0would be to convince = a (typically ART) AD to do so.

That con= cerns 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 th= at
assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in what it<= br> is instead.

If it had any additional = authority, I would agree. It does not appear to, and therefore I do not.

I also a= m 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<= br> 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 of= ten there is more organization. That seems like a legitimate reason for the= pause.

At the risk of putting word= s into Alexey=E2=80=99s mouth, I think this was an exceptional case due to = the fact that the directorate creation was imminent, but perhaps not so imm= inent that it could finish it=E2=80=99s first review before the LC ended. I= t was Alexey=E2=80=99s 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
IDNA-UPDATE@ietf.= org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update


--
New postal address:
Google
1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor=
Reston, VA 20190
--0000000000000497ab057c3b5cb0-- From nobody Tue Dec 4 17:49:07 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30CF130E0E for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:49:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=xgenplus.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxCpxdsua6uu for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from a.tbms.in (a.tbms.in [202.157.95.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51626130DC2 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:49:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; q=dns/txt; c=simple/relaxed; t=1543974541; s=xgen; d=xgenplus.com; h=In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Date:Message-ID; z=In-Reply-To:|References:<3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB>=20=20<8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.= com>=20=20<= 680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net>=20=20=20<921E77FB-64DA-4A09-95BB-7307099F0B43@nostrum.com>=20|MIME-Version:1.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit|From:Ajay=20Data=20|Date:Wed,=2005=20Dec=202018=2006:51:42=20+0530|Message-ID:<1914800551.9846091543974541928.JavaMail.root@mx2.datainfosys.com>; l=13176; bh=4TMgy2f5+shTJkPBpmI1qYcN5CI=; b=QW62vSAnWfucTb8umgeTxmAWiEFPf5kgcEQ/EcnzsjaRVw+Bb0WIxokegxYa9Bem NJYUCMbQ7aJxZsq51S4gEJdvGRitlFQ9XN42seoMrO3TnhA8ZVLqm2x4dqsRhrpcAGN JEZTb9M0Y5ZVmY4ZlyDx48a3fqZdzKt2+kbK3gm8= Received: From 202.157.83.44[202.157.83.44] by [202.157.83.51] [mx2.datainfosys.com] [mta] with SMTP id ../InBoxS/20181205/06/10970.611159182698(1543973007803); Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:23:27 +0000 Received: From 202.157.87.20[202.157.87.20] by [202.157.87.20] [DataMailApp-2] [mta] with SMTP id 34300.75931127895(1543973007709); Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:23:27 +0000 Received: From[9c365f6ade93d2ec480c9a39a918d5eb] [223.189.167.235] with SMTP id 67730.75716498951(1543972967431); Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:22:47 +0000 User-Agent: XGenPlus for Android X-Mailer: XGenPlus App Ver 1.70 X_Xgen_Delivery_Report: yes X_Xgen_Device_Id: 352016090237397 In-Reply-To: References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> <921E77FB-64DA-4A09-95BB-7307099F0B43@nostrum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----491R58XUK1P3JJ108BMQYD10CJUCPA" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ajay Data Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 06:51:42 +0530 To: vint=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org,ben@nostrum.com CC: ted.ietf@gmail.com, i18n-discuss@iab.org, precis@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, idna-update@ietf.org, resnick@episteme.net Message-ID: <1914800551.9846091543974541928.JavaMail.root@mx2.datainfosys.com> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 01:49:07 -0000 ------491R58XUK1P3JJ108BMQYD10CJUCPA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 On 5 December 2018 05:51:01 GMT+05:30, Vint Cerf wrote: >suggestion: > >set up the advisory group and allow it to offer advice to the >appropriate >AD=2E >This same advisory group can reasonably share its findings more >generally, >thereby "educating=2E=2E=2E=2E" the rest of the community=2E No power to = block >should >either explicitly or implicitly be inferred by the creation of the >advisory >body=2E > >vint > > >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=2E " >> >> As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with an AD >requesting a >> review of a specific individual or set of individuals=2E But John's >message >> is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different >than the >> usual directorate=2E >> >> 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=2E The fact that those >duties get >> a more formal mention in the mission of the i18n directorate doesn't >give >> me pause=2E But what I was responding to was this part of your earlier >> message: >> >> On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote: >> >> =2E=2E=2EI inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an >> independent authority to foster work or block documents=2E >> >> 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)=2E And that seems the real basis for your objection=2E= 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=2E >> >> That concerns me, especially if it is meant to have a >> review power beyond "advising the ART ADs", which is what (ART) >> directorates do=2E Soliciting and receiving that advice is the state >you're >> pointing to, and but John has asserted this is not that=2E >> >> John has asserted that it is not *only* that=2E 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"=2E >> >> Given that >> assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in >what it >> is instead=2E >> >> If it had any additional authority, I would agree=2E It does not appear >to, >> and therefore I do not=2E >> >> 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=2E There is no power in the >advice >> coming from a directorate rather than Individual 1 or 2=2E But that is >a >> timing question, not a process point=2E >> >> There is no power, but often there is more organization=2E That seems >like a >> legitimate reason for the pause=2E >> >> At the risk of putting words into Alexey=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99s= first >> review before the LC ended=2E It was Alexey=E2=80=99s choice to stop th= e LC, >but he >> might have chosen the same even if he just asked an individual to do >an >> expert review=2E >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben=2E >> _______________________________________________ >> IDNA-UPDATE mailing list >> IDNA-UPDATE@ietf=2Eorg >> https://www=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/idna-update >> > > >--=20 >New postal address: >Google >1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >Reston, VA 20190 > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >IMA mailing list >IMA@ietf=2Eorg >https://www=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/ima --=20 Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus=2E ------491R58XUK1P3JJ108BMQYD10CJUCPA Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1

On 5 December= 2018 05:51:01 GMT+05:30, Vint Cerf <vint=3D40google=2Ecom@dmarc=2Eietf=2Eorg> wrote:
suggestion:

set up the advisory grou= p and allow it to offer advice to the appropriate AD=2E
This same= advisory group can reasonably share its findings more generally,
thereby "educating=2E=2E=2E=2E" the rest of the community=2E No = power to block should
either explicitly or implicitly be inferred= by the creation of the advisory body=2E

vint


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:09 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum=2Ecom> wrote:
Responding to a couple of points, inline:

On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme=2Enet&g= t; wrote:

Trimming a bit:

On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, T= ed Hardie wrote:

Howdy P= ete,


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=2E "

As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with an AD requesting a review of a specific individual or set of individuals=2E But John's m= essage
is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different than th= e
usual directorate=2E

Certainly to some small = extent all of the directorates "advise, inform, and perhaps even educa= te 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=2E The fact that those duties get a more= formal mention in the mission of the i18n directorate doesn't give me = pause=2E But what I was responding to was this part of your earlier message= :

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

=2E=2E=2EI inferre= d that the intent was to set up a group with an
independent authority to foster work or block documents=2E

Like Ben, I see nothing = in John's words (or any of the discussions of the directorate) that ind= icate any power to "block documents", let alone some other sort o= f special "independent authority" (beyond what we already have ex= perience with)=2E And that seems the real basis for your objection=2E I thi= nk perhaps you're tilting at a windmill



As an ART AD, my expectatio= n is that the directorates only power to block documents =C2=A0would be to = convince a (typically ART) AD to do so=2E

That co= ncerns me, especially if it is meant to have a
review power beyond "advising the ART ADs", which is what (ART)<= br /> directorates do=2E Soliciting and receiving that advice is the state you&= #39;re
pointing to, and but John has asserted this is not that=2E

John has asserted that i= t is not only that=2E But the only thing that it appears to be bey= ond that is a group that can, as John said, "advise, inform, and perha= ps even educate the community"=2E

Given t= hat
assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in what it=
is instead=2E

If it had any additional= authority, I would agree=2E It does not appear to, and therefore I do not= =2E

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=2E There is no power in the adv= ice
coming from a directorate rather than Individual 1 or 2=2E But that is a timing question, not a process point=2E

There is no power, but o= ften there is more organization=2E That seems like a legitimate reason for = the pause=2E

At the risk of putting= words into Alexey=E2=80=99s mouth, I think this was an exceptional case du= e to the fact that the directorate creation was imminent, but perhaps not s= o imminent that it could finish it=E2=80=99s first review before the LC end= ed=2E It was Alexey=E2=80=99s choice to stop the LC, but he might have chos= en the same even if he just asked an individual to do an expert review=2E

Thanks!

Ben=2E
_______________________________________________
IDNA-UPDATE mailing list
IDNA-UPDATE@ie= tf=2Eorg
https://www=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/idna= -update


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


IMA mailing list
IMA@i=
etf=2Eorg
ht=
tps://www=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/ima

--
Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus=2E ------491R58XUK1P3JJ108BMQYD10CJUCPA-- From nobody Wed Dec 5 13:03:41 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53044130EEA; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 13:03:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2DPJ67y6smIY; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 13:03:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A1AF130E55; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 13:03:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1gUeKA-0004DH-Fp; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:03:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:03:07 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Ben Campbell , Ted Hardie , i18nrp@ietf.org cc: i18n-discuss@iab.org, idna-update@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org Message-ID: <39FC1797F4E0305921306004@PSB> In-Reply-To: <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 21:03:21 -0000 Ben and others, Sorry... had to be away from the list for a while. I very much appreciate your note and Pete's clarifications. I want to add some observations in the hope that they will be helpful. Apologies for length -- I think it is important to understand the context of the "directorate" idea, in large measure because I believe that the IETF should be trying to solve problems rather than looking for procedural reasons not to (or to avoid important aspects of them). Even while I'm concerned about delays too, I think you and your ART AD colleagues are on the right path there. To go back to basics, when Patrik and I requested the BOF that became I18NRP it was precisely because we saw an unusual and problematic situation. I suppose it could be described in several different ways, but one version is that there seemed to be agreement in principle in the IETF that lowering the barriers to Internet use by people whose preferred languages and writing systems are not English, or even Western European, was important but that the IETF was (or had become) unable to advance work to address that requirement. This affected work directly concerned with what has usually been called internationalization (or i18n) including follow-in efforts for work developed by the IDNABIS, PRECIS, and EAI WGs; extending other protocols to use non-ASCII text or identifiers such as the work on certificates in LAMPS; and maintenance of assorted registries with high confidence that all relevant issues were being addressed. While we could usually get interest in creating new WGs for the first type of work, they tended to run out of energy among people with the right mix of expertise to get the work done before they concluded. The two most recent WGs devoted to the area, PRECIS and EAI, had less than a handful of people actually doing the work of developing and reviewing documents by the time they wound down. Getting good input and reviews for other work often involved people calling in personal favors with friends and colleagues. The net result has been that work has been stalled for several years. In a way, this is not surprising. While almost anyone with familiarity with more than one language (even rather closely-related ones) can understand that there are issues, true experts in the field (actually the multiple fields that bear on the issues) are very rare. The subset of them who are also familiar enough with the protocols that lie in the IETF's mainstream is even smaller, to the point that anyone claiming comprehensive expertise in both may well be suffering from a bad case of not knowing what they don't know. Picking on the people who first made substantive comments on this thread, I don't believe that any of Patrik, Asmus, or myself would claim that our knowledge was so comprehensive that is wasn't necessary to involve others (if I ever appear to do so, a forceful reminder would we welcome). Anyone who generates a proposal or analysis and says that one particular other person has looked at it and therefore it is ok is doing that person, as well as the community, a serious disservice. One thing that is clear is that we can't seek answers and expertise from individuals. We have to find it in diverse teams who talk with each other and explore ideas and proposals with each other. Another problem is that the knowledge and skill sets needed to address the issues are not exactly part of the mainstream of IETF work. We can't expect people who don't have the background for the work to read in quickly. That background is not part of the education of the typical network engineer. I suggest that we might have similar problems if we embarked on work that had significant interactions with power engineering or, for that matter, with the proverbial rocket science. We'd need to find the few people within the normal IETF community who happened to have the relevant background in addition to whatever interests, skills, and background brought them to the IETF. Then we'd need to convince them (and, in most cases, employers, etc.) to participate actively in the work, presumably borrowing time from, or sharing it with, time for rather than whatever brought them to the IETF. They would also have to learn things they didn't know in spite of at least having the background to learn. And, unless they were also expert in the relevant IETF protocol work, we'd need to make them part of team efforts. The BOF was created against that background to see if we could find a way to get un-stuck. It was aware of things that had been tried or suggested in the past and that had not proven helpful, including the IAB's decision to shut down its own I18n Program because it couldn't make it useful. I deliberately stayed out of the discussion of what the "directorate" should be called but, because of the team and educational requirements, it was clear that it would be necessary to either invent an entirely new beast or to have a slightly-odd directorate, slightly-odd review team, slightly-odd working group, or even a slightly-odd area. The ART ADs decided on a directorate, which was fine, although I hope and assume everyone understood (and understands) the team and internal consultation models -- not to form a hard position, but to be as sure as possible that the issues were fully (or at least adequately) understood. There was never any implication of blocking work or somehow functioning outside the system. The IESG (and individual Areas) remain in a position to listen carefully to any advice they get and then go do something else (although there are at least implicit requirements to explain a decision like that to the community). The strong suggestion for "reviews first, then Last Call" are just a pragmatic notion for getting the advice and perspective in front of the community (not just the IESG) that the community needs to perform an evaluation. Not only, as Pete has pointed out, has it never been prohibited by the procedures (and RFC 2028 doesn't even mention directorates), but the basis between the distinction between two-week Last Calls for WG products and four-week Last Calls for everything else is precisely the notion that, in the former case, there has been careful review, analysis, and reporting prior to the Last Call by a systematically-organized and focused expert group within the community. We've never discussed whether outputs of more diffuse "Area WGs" should get the same consideration, but I've noticed that many ADs treat them somewhat differently than WGs specifically organized and chartered around a topic. So I don't see anything unusual going on here other than the ART ADs trying to address issues with making progress and getting effective reviews, insight, and opportunities for community understanding of what is going on when prior attempts have failed. If Ted or others feel a need to make a case that there should instead be a formally-chartered WG to examine and process all proposed documents involving i18n issues, nothing prevents them from making that argument... but I hope they would remember not only that more narrowly-focused i18n-related WGs have come very close to running out of steam and that the process of chartering such a WG would add even more of the delay about which they are presumably objecting. best, john --On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 15:29 -0600 Ben Campbell wrote: > 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? From nobody Wed Dec 5 13:38:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C71130E95; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 13:37:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lzi70Ib2VLKT; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 13:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46C9012D4E7; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 13:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1gUerR-0004Fd-Q3; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:37:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:37:30 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Vint Cerf , ben@nostrum.com cc: resnick@episteme.net, Ted Hardie , i18n-discuss@iab.org, precis@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, idna-update@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> <921E77FB-64DA-4A09-95BB-7307099F0B43@nostrum.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 21:37:47 -0000 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. (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. From nobody Wed Dec 5 14:09:03 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E76130F08 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:08:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.36 X-Spam-Level: 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=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=viagenie-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sEmVw3_d3k_X for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:08:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B737130EED for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:08:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id d19so24155719qtq.9 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:08:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=viagenie-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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=uCnrPparKR8tGi54eB1mvT59Jao6uh+xTuPDBNudHrU4kE4eVI88ck4bEZVkUFPFSn 6ClU87gmk8rC/PECAEA8spD8GdS13zSMGFXPycnZN5uplYS0JYBzR1v1xkpN3EuYCiWz O8bO6r52ooBlGtuGDC80Q/0Kf09gPIafHhJwrIDfT7ZUSSoisatQXAWhKIR6MqwiZV54 1b7qPLBSxlLv3XdLicxSh72A6FeTdw/QLj291kWqoXBWkatWkVlfAHWzMAN5SlOTDzRg Oe7e9tWNc1k/r5vPQNGcFZlbZClF37tYf7fTfWy67Dwl0gVXqBU23xpeb9YA6z8rDLGQ u4fQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaV6h69dooII1E9RzY1zf34xIVpLu9NXY2CKbz/6tX+X47DMgir YPboQof5rvrvI+Pz2HOHsiq9lA== 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 [192.168.1.60] (modemcable138.218-70-69.static.videotron.ca. [69.70.218.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v42sm13725513qth.32.2018.12.05.14.08.44 (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" , ben@nostrum.com, "Ted Hardie" , i18n-discuss@iab.org, precis@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org, idna-update@ietf.org, resnick@episteme.net Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:08:43 -0500 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.2r5568) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.com> <680E50F3-3881-416F-A11A-22563F44A732@episteme.net> <921E77FB-64DA-4A09-95BB-7307099F0B43@nostrum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [EAI] [Idna-update] [precis] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 22:08:53 -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. Marc. > > (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 > IDNA-UPDATE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update