On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > That seems to cover most angles. I can't see why the IESG could be > expected to add technical disclaimers to a consensus document. In fact, > doing so would probably be a process violation in itself. Well, ok, and yes it probably would be a violation. But to defend the appelant, there might be a serious (though in my view totally wrong) point in the appeal. I'm extremely uncomfortable speculating about what M. Morfin really means (yes, I am entering that in the understatement of the year competition), but I think his substantive point is that the IDNA2008 use doesn't provide regular, non-technical Internet users with a complete, totally functional, rich experience that is unsurprising to them given their regular language. I think the point about disclaimers is that he thinks the publication premature, given that it can't provide that experience. So the documents should come with a warning that more work is to be done. That's more specific than the general and standard disclaimer. As I argued previously, such a view gets almost completely wrong the way the IETF standards process works. If that were the bar we had to jump, nothing would ever go out without such a warning. Soon we'd be plastering our RFCs with warnings about the hot drink inside, and so on. Maybe we'd even have to warn people about the possibility of cookies causing complaints on mailing lists. One almost anticipates the day when each addition to the RFC series is actually just new boilerplate, and nothing else. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf