On 2/25/2021 8:07 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
As I indicated in my note, I believe this is a case in which we
need to reach some sort of consensus about what we want to do
first. Text that is linked to specific suggestions or issues is
likely to be an invitation for tours of assorted bikesheds (and
discussions of the kind of details of terminology that appears
above) if it is supplied before there is agreement about what
problems are worth solving.
John, since you are pressing to up-level the entire topic, I'd be
interested in your explaining a bit about the way you are pursuing your
concern.
The draft was discussed in September and October on the 1etf-822 mailing
list, with significant activity and revision. You posted one note,
offering multiple points, but not what you are raising now.
IETF Last Call went for a month, but again, nothing on the last-call
mailing list until now, after the IESG has reviewed the document.
And for all that, you are pressing to re-open first-principles on what
otherwise seems to be and is intended to be quite a simple
specification. And equally pressing for refraining from offering
concrete solutions to resolve your concerns.
I'll also offer that besides some focused issue with the choice of
details for referencing Unicode, I really can't claim to have a concrete
-- or for that matter, even vague -- understanding of what your larger
concerns are, with respect to this specification and with its use in
email, in spite of your posting multiple notes today.
I'm curious how this can be viewed as productive.
d/
ps. I do understand that you raised the concern privately with the
IESG. That doesn't seem all that relevant, given the above.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
