| Joel, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to chat about the review team.
Alissa
No problem on the time. I appreciated Barry's ack.Further on your response below.Yours,JoelOn 8/10/2019 2:13 AM, John C Klensin wrote:Joel,
My apologies for not being able to respond to this sooner. I've
been preoccupied for the last couple of days with some non-IETF
matters. Inline below.
--On Thursday, August 8, 2019 19:23 -0700 Joel Halpern via
Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General
Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being
processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2019-08-08
IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-30
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: THis document is ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard
This reviewer found the document quite readable and clear
about what it was doing (with one minor issue noted
below.) The reviewer does not have the background to
evaluate whether the technical substance is correct or
incorrect, and leaves that to the community review. The
document is quite persuasive.
Major issues: N/A
Thanks for what was obviously a careful reading.
Minor issues:
I would like to see a little more explicit text in section
3.2. It was not until I reached the IANA considerations
(section 8) that I realized that section 3.2 intended to
mandate that the IESG create and where applicable use a
broad review team for the new code point review. I think a
sentence or so along the lines of "Creation of this team
when needed is a new responsibility placed on the IESG by
this document." would have helped.
While I don't think that text (or something like it) would be
harmful and will happily include it in the I-D if Barry and the
IESG think it would help, you have, from my standpoint,
uncovered the elephant in the room. It may be a mean-tempered
elephant.
The difficulty with i18n work is that it requires people to work
together to combine the perspectives of multiple specialties.
Of course, the same could be said for routing or security, but
most of the relevant specialties are part of, or align well
with, expertise that are moderately common in, or that seem to
fit well with, the IETF. With i18n, many are not and they
rarely appear, all together, in on person. So competent review
of just about anything in internationalization in the IETF
requires a team. The IESG has known that since 2003 or earlier
and took on the responsibility then. When we've appointed a
single Designated Expert, it has almost always been someone who
is expected to reach out to others, collect opinions, and then
synthesize a result (again, really not so different from many
other topic areas). So, really, this I-D is not changing much
of anything in terms of what was expected, it is just being a
tad more explicit about it.
In addition, I predict that it will be fairly rare for the IESG
to have sufficient internal expertise and contacts to recruit
and select an entire team with the right mix of skills.
Remember that, because some of the skills are uncommon in the
IETF, a note to the IETF list or former WG lists asking for
volunteers may not be productive. Certainly IESGs with the full
range of needed knowledge have not been common in the last
decade or so. So I'd predict that a sensible IESG would pick
one or two people, ask them to recruit a team, and then bring
the list of team members back to the IESG for a sanity check.
It is probably not a coincidence that almost that model was used
by the ART ADs to set up the i18n Directorate, nor, if the
Directorate continues, would it surprise me if "the team" turned
out to be the Directorate or a selected subset of it.
If we are going to make the language more precise as you
suggest, we need to do it so as to not constrain the IESG's
ability to pick any of those options that makes sense in a given
year.
While one can argue that the meaning you want is implicit in the current text, I do not think most readers will get it. And thus and IESG without your context might easily not get it either. Would the following three sentences work? This document makes more explicit the IESG responsibility to ensure a proper review team for the new code point review. As that team needs a broad range of skills, the IESG may use a range of strategies to populate the team. In particular, the IESG may select an individual to do the work of proposing a sufficiently broad team for the review, and then empower that team.best,
john
Nits/editorial comments: N/A
_______________________________________________Gen-art mailing listGen-art@xxxxxxxxhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
|
