Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)

Mark Davis mark at macchiato.com
Tue Oct 7 10:08:36 CEST 2008


>
> Place your reply here: [YES or NO]
>

NO


>
> COMMENTS:
>

The note below says that "the" alternative is to move the normative material
out of Rationale into a second document".  But look closely at the
statement:

"...even if this lengthens the WG's target dates for an unknown period of
time.  Note that there may be controversy about what material is normative
and what is not; that is a separate consensus issue and may also take an
unknown period of time to resolve ..."


These are *precisely* the reasons why this measure should fail. If there is
controversy in *this* group about what is normative or not, it means that
the document as a whole is badly written, and will be impossible for
ordinary readers to understand what is normative or not. Moreover, the "even
if this lengthens the target dates" is a misleading. I believe it will take
much longer to iron out the many problems in Rationale if it has normative
content than if it is purely informative -- in the latter case, the problems
in the text are not as important.

If we were really concerned with (a) the timing, and (b) having a rigorous
document, the better alternative would be to move the normative definitions
into Protocol (or a separate document), and then put Rationale on its own
track, not tied to the release schedule of the other parts.

Mark


>
> Procedure:
>
>
> There are several decisions that the working group will need to make to
> confirm consensus.  I will send a series of proposals over the next two
> weeks requesting YES or NO positions on each within a 4 day window. If NO is
> the response, a reason for that position needs to be stated. If there is a
> clear consensus based on responses or in the absence ofa consensus against
> each proposal, it will be assumed that the proposal is acceptable to the
> Working Group.
>
>
> Parenthesized symbols (e.g., "(R.1)") after the items are references to the
> issues lists where additional explanations can be found, as sent by John
> Klensin as body parts "idnabis-protocol-issues-rev3" and
> "idnabis-rationale-issues-03" on a message titled 'Issues lists and the
> "preprocessing" topic'  to the working group on 18 August (
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2008-August/002537.html)
>
> This group needs to get its documents out; it is behind its original
> schedule. It should be noted that the IDN ccTLD and gTLD selection
> initiatives at ICANN have already begun so that delay may weaken the IETF's
> ability to assist in a rational deployment of IDNA.
>
>
> (1) Document organization
>
>
> (1.a) The Rationale document should be retained to support implementors
> whose work requires that they understand the reasoning behind certain design
> choices.  The philosophy of IDNA2008 relies strongly on the ability of
> registries (especially those of top-level domains) to properly constrain the
> choice of labels even if they are composed of characters that are protocol
> valid.  (R.1)
>
> (1.b) While there has been debate about whether or not the content of the
> Rationale document should contain normative material, it seems expedient to
> agree on the content of Rationale for Proposed Standard without attempting
> to separate it into multiple parts. Therefore, it appears that the WG
> consensus is that: The normative material (definitions) should be retained
> in Rationale.
>
> A YES means you concur with the consensus statements above.
>
> The alternative is:
>
> - The normative material should be removed from Rationale and extracted to
> a separate document (for example Terms and Concepts) even if this lengthens
> the WG's target dates for an unknown period of time.  Note that there may be
> controversy about what material is normative and what is not; that is a
> separate consensus issue and may also take an unknown period of time to
> resolve   (R.2)
>
>
> NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
> Vint Cerf
> Google
> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> Reston, VA 20190
> 202-370-5637
> vint at google.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081007/6178a6ba/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Idna-update mailing list