I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt

[John C Klensin]

--On Saturday, March 11, 2017 14:28 -0800 Paul Hoffman
<phoffman at imc.org> wrote:

> On 11 Mar 2017, at 13:05, John C Klensin wrote:
>...
>> Would it help if that sentence said "in the opinion of the
>> authors and those authors of RFC 5891-5893 who were polled, it
>> does not alter..."?   I'd hate to clutter the abstract (which
>> is already pushing length limits) with that level of detail,
>> but I imagine I could track down the relevant authors and get
>> their consent and put something to that effect in the
>> document body. Suggestions as to then how to tune the
>> abstract text would be welcome.
> 
> Instead, I would not say "it does not alter" at all. It does
> alter the spec for everyone who interpreted it differently
> than you expected them to. If you want this to be a standard
> updating a standard, admitting that the first standard was not
> clear is a good thing.

Sentence dropped.  If and when someone from the IESG complains
about the absence of a sentence in the abstract explaining how
this spec changes the protocol, I will refer them to you.

>...
>>> FWIW, I consider this to be far from trivial. If you mean to
>>> clarify this standard, the discussion should have a IETF
>>> mailing list associated with it, not done on a private
>>> mailing list that is barely alive. And if you mean to open
>>> the standard (even a little), it should be done in an IETF WG
>>> under IETF consensus rules. Yes, I remember how hard it was
>>> to get consensus the last time, but the result of that was
>>> the lack of clarity that you are trying to fix now.
>> 
>> I have never intended that it be discussed on a private
>> mailing list and have written Alexey asking how he wants to
>> handle it and where he wanted it discussed (and, btw,
>> suggesting that, if the answer was this one, that it be moved
>> to IETF equipment). I apologize for not realizing I hadn't
>> done that until this weekend, but I do expect to fix it in
>> -01, which I will get posted as soon after I hear from him as
>> possible.  In the interim, this is not a "private mailing
>> list", it is the mailing list from an IETF WG that has
>> closed, a perfectly orderly place to have this type of
>> discussion.
> 
> A mailing list not run by the IETF, barely visible to the
> outside world, is still a private mailing list even if it was
> the WG mailing list. Please strongly consider getting one
> managed by the IETF, archived by the IETF, and much more
> visible than this list.

Again, I'm waiting to hear from Alexey and will be happy to do
whatever he suggests and the next version of the document will
point to whatever list he designates.   If you are suggesting
that there should be no IETF mailing lists (WG or otherwise)
except those "managed by the IETF" and/or a different way to
document still-active mailing lists for inactive or terminated
WGs, I actually agree with you.  But it it seems to me that is a
separate issue from this particular document and the list used
to discuss it (and discuss other issues with IDNA), an issue
that you should take up with the IESG as a more general policy
recommendation.

  john