I-D Action:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt

J-F C. Morfin jfc at morfin.org
Fri Dec 24 02:10:32 CET 2010

At 16:30 23/12/2010, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>There seemed to be a lot of cc:s.  I trimmed them.

I restored those who are concerned and not on the 
idna-update at alvestrand.no mailing list.

>I think you have a deep confusion about IETF procedures.  There is no
>requirement that documents from the IETF automatically came from a
>working group.  An AD-sponsored document that goes through an IETF
>last call can still represent IETF consensus.  There is no IETF
>requirement at all for a working group for this draft.

As you say: "can still represent". This is a standard track private 
submission without any AD sponsoring so far, unless I am wrong?

This is why some precautions should be considered for credibility. 
Questions might also be raised when the Chair of the formerly 
concerned WG says that there is already a consensus, if I am reading 
him correctly. I certainly can guess that there is a consensus among 
the Unicode BoD Members, Directors, senior Members and President from 
their mails on this list.

There is a non-event confirming that RFC 5892 is well written. There 
is also the use of this non-event to reopen again the_single_central_ 
architectural issue: who is to control the Internet linguistic 
architecture (and IANA user linguistic tables updates)? Is it the 
Unicode globalization or the grassroots multilingualization, or 
should they coexist. RFC 4646 and RFC 5892 already answered that.

If the target is to restart opposition between the commercially 
sponsored "inside engineers" and FLOSS lead user "outside engineers" 
solely to demonstrate RFC 3869 again, just as ICANN tries to impose 
the US international policy over gTLDs, then I have no problem with 
that. Moreover, the rationale is rather weak, since the whole thing 
boils down to three short utterances:

- "as per RFC 5892, Unicode Version 6 is an IETF non-event"
- "but who knows, perhaps RFC 5892 could have been wrong, so keep 
watching (implied: do not over trust IDNS2008)"
- "because Unicode is the Internet reference (implied not the IETF, 
nor the IUsers)".

Mind you, there is a simple way to address this: every Unicode 
President, Director, Members, and Member employee should excuse 
him/herself from this decision and clearly identify him/herself as a 
"Unicoder" in the IETF Last Call discussion, since there seems to be 
a real COI over an Internet fundamental issue for us, IUsers, which 
is (with no intended disrespect to anyone) the Internet that exists 
the day after the Google stream stops.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list