On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Fair enough; good luck with the effort to clear. regards, Ted Hardie > > 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