Ted: There is an IESG Telechat tomorrow with 22 documents on it. Outgoing ADs are trying to clear as much work as possible for the incoming ADs. So, frankly, I've been focused on these 22 documents, and I will not be able to read the 140+ page appeal until the IESG Telechat is over. Thanks for your reader's digest version. Russ On 3/10/2010 6:20 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > Hi Russ, > > The appeal appears to run 145 pages, at least in my PDF viewer. > Attempting to navigate > this, I see "points of appeal", which has the following text: > > "This is why this appeal does not concern the IDNA 2008 document set, > as approved by the IESG, which is now of prime stable importance when > considering the Internet architecture from a user perspective, but > also concerning the way the IESG has approved this IDNA2008 document > set, while: > > not obtaining and inserting a disclaimer from the IAB in turn warning > the Internet users community about the architectural consequences of > the "unusual" strategy that the IETF adopted in this document set "to > insure interoperability" (cf. Mapping document). > > not classifying it as an IESG disclaimer warning for the Internet > users community about the necessary incompleteness of the new > introduced IDNA architecture, when compared to IDNA2003, due to its > open nature on the user side. > > in spite of the Working Group Summary statement that: "There was an > impasse relating to the mapping of Unicode characters into other > Unicode characters prior to the generation of a punycode equivalent > string to produce an A-label [please see the Definitions document]. > This was resolved by introducing the non-normative “mappings” > document", wherein that Mapping document was not simultaneously > approved, but while it should at least have been acknowledged at the > same level as the Rationale document. > > in so doing, in not having considered its precautionary duty enough as > it results from the IETF mission, and introducing confusion that is to > be urgently clarified before its consequences might endanger the > entire Internet system architecture and the operational deployment > unsuitability for the reasons detailed in this appeal." > > Trying to combine this with the cover page text as best I can, this > appeal seems to request the IESG to > provide a set of warnings around this document and/or a disclaimer > saying that the technology is not ready > to use. > > Is that interpretation a reasonable approximation of your > understanding of the actions requested of > the IESG? > > regards, > > Ted Hardie > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The IESG has received an appeal. It can be found here: >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf >> >> JFC Morfin included these comments in the cover note: >>> >>> Basically this appeal documents that IDNA2008 enlight capacities >>> and principles that are built in the Internet technology but that >>> were not used. This is a great thing. However the IESG has not >>> included a disclaimer on top of these documents, nor foreseen how >>> and where the necessary IDNA user-side issues are to be discussed >>> and documented. This may lead people like me to unpredictably toy >>> with them without any established Adminance (governance of the tools >>> to be managed by the Governance) arrangement, or organizations like >>> ICANN to engage into inappropriate testing. >>> >>> The document size is impressive. There is three reasons to that: >>> >>> - the impact on the Internet usage architecture is potentially >>> impressive >>> >>> - the change is not in the technology, but in the way to consider >>> the technology and the way it addresses multiplicity. IDNA2008 is >>> about pople's multilinguization while IDNA2003 was about Unicode's >>> globalization. This is a big change that multilinguists can discuss. >>> However, everyone has to understand it simplifies the complexity of >>> handling multiplicity (RFC 3439 - principle of simplicity) in >>> conformance with RFC 1858 to do it at fringes. RFC 1958 also advises >>> to keep the first solution when it works. >>> >>> - the third reasons is that I do not want to be accused of not having >>> checked my rationale for Interplus and further Intersem work. NB. I >>> call Interplus is what I think Internet needs to be able to fully >>> support the Intersem (that the IDNA2008's approaches simplifies), and >>> the Intersem is what IDNA2008 introduces: the capacity for brain to >>> brain interintelligibility. >>> >>> The document is also maintained as a wiki under >>> http://iucg.org/wiki/100310_-_JFCM_Appeal_to_the_IESG. >> >> The IESG plans address this appeal in the next few weeks, and the IESG >> solicits comments on this appeal from the community. Please send >> substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2010-03-27. >> Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. >> >> On behalf of the IESG, >> Russ Housley >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf