Re: Appeal to the IESG concerning the approbation of the IDNA2008 document set.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 14:43 10-03-10, Russ Housley wrote:
The IESG has received an appeal.  It can be found here:

[snip]

The IESG plans address this appeal in the next few weeks, and the IESG
solicits comments on this appeal from the community.  Please send

I will not be able to reply to off-list comments about this appeal.

The document written by the appellant contains what seems to be lengthy background information. It would have been easier to read if the usual guidance for RFC style was followed. There is a view that the probability of the reader understanding the points raised by the appellant is inversely proportional to the number of pages in the document.

On Page 2, it is mentioned that "the IESG has failed in its precautionary duty". The argument seems to be the lack of a disclaimer of liability in the IDNA2008 specifications. I have some difficulty understanding the notion of "precautionary duty" described by the appellant.

On Page 3, it is mentioned that the appeal is from an Internet User. I presume that the appellant means "from an IETF participant".

On Page 6, the argument seems to be about a disclaimer from the IAB. It is hard to say whether the appellant wants an IESG or IAB disclaimer. By the way, the mission statement does not cover publication procedures.

On Page 9, ICANN is mentioned with a quote from what looks like press release material. I don't see what the IETF can do to change ICANN's point of view. It may be judicious for the appellant to discuss about ICANN issues with ICANN. The document mentions confusion shared by Internet Governance stakeholders. As neither the IESG nor the IAB govern the Internet, I don't see the relevance. The IETF obviously doesn't run the Internet or even believes that it runs the Internet.

I presume that the annexes as from Page 21 are to provide background information.

I'll note that there has been a healthy debate within the IDNAbis Working Group about the points mentioned in this appeal. I would describe working group participation as unusual and well above the average participation as there was representations from people who are from several countries; some of which do not have English as their native language. The IDNAbis Working Group brought together the expertise, as far as it was practical, to tackle such a difficult and delicate subject. It was a balancing act for the Working Group Chair to determine consensus. In my opinion, it was done in a fair and open manner without any hint of exclusion of views that are not part of the main stream.

Allowing recourse to an appeal is important as there as "there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree". It is not up to me to judge whether this appeal is reasonable or whether the appellant is knowledgeable about the subject discussed in the document. My biased opinion is about the document at hand.

After reading and reading the document again, I could not find any arguments that points to an Internet Standards Process failure. To say that I am far from convinced about the technical merits of the appeal would be an understatement. If the appellant is asking for an IESG or IAB disclaimer, I do not find any technical reason to support the inclusion of such a statement in the IDNA20008 document set.

Due to the subjectiveness of presentation layers, I may have missed what the appellant is asking for. I unfortunately cannot solve presentation issues that are outside my control. If the IESG encounters such issues with this document, I suggest that it asks the appellant to clarify what action is being sought.

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]