[idn] RE: UTF-8 as the long-term IDN solution

["Ian King" <iking@microsoft.com>]

Sounds to me like this is the ADs' job.  I know that in the past, I've
seen an AD replace a chair who was not forwarding the work of the group.
Obviously, it's a pretty extreme remedy. =20

Do NOT intepret this as an endorsement from me that a particular chair
needs to be replaced; I'm only commenting on process.  -- Ian=20

-----Original Message-----
From: D. J. Bernstein [mailto:djb@cr.yp.to]=20
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:29 AM
To: idn@ops.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; poised@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: UTF-8 as the long-term IDN solution


Keith Moore writes:
 > I believe this is adequately addressed in RFC 2026, section 6.5.

I don't see how.

RFC 2026, section 6.5, is for cases where someone disagrees with ``a
Working Group recommendation.''

What's happening in this case is completely different. There is no
recommendation. There are a huge number of WG members who

    (1) agree that UTF-8 will be the long-term solution;
    (2) suspect that there's consensus in the WG on #1; and
    (3) believe that establishing consensus would save time for the WG.

But the chair, who disagrees with #1, is stonewalling, in violation of
his responsibility under RFC 2418 to ensure forward progress.

As you can see from http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html, I've
already tried using the RFC 2026 process to handle procedural problems,
specifically DNSEXT mailing list censorship, which has been roundly
criticized in POISSON recently. The process took more than two years.
The basic problem still isn't fixed.

I don't want IDN to wait two years. There needs to be a mechanism for
the WG to act over the opposition of the chair. IETF doesn't seem to
have any such mechanism.

---Dan