Re: [idn] Update Charter revision 2

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Then propose the changes you want in the update charter.

Broad comments like this lead us nowhere nearer to the goal, unless of
cos your goal is to derail the group as long as possible.

-James Seng

> The changes you propose (and I grant that someone else may have
written them
> and it just appears under your name as the co-chair of the moment) to
the WG
> description aren't useful. There are three, the first ("names") is
irrelevant,
> the second (DNSEXT) is probably wrong (this WG is going to modify
DNS??? How
> in an IDNA program?), and the third refers to two undefined entities,
an "I18N
> group" and "other relevant expert group".
>
> The changes to you (see above) propose to the WG goals are also
problematic.
> You've got the WG turned into an ACE-specific WG. That is consistent
with a
> rough consensus (I don't mind being "wrong"), but inconsistent with
your new
> bit in the description section that touts this WG as something that
may change
> the DNS, outside of the DNSEXT WG. Pick one, but not both.
>
> The proposed deletion of an informational RFC(s) documenting various
proposals
> and implementations and providing a technical evaluation of the
proposals is a
> real loss. I guess we'll find out if the IESG is so tired of this mess
that it
> is willing to conclude "de minimus".
>
> I'm so unfond of the way the requirements draft has been edited that I
don't
> mind if it never sees the light of day, I don't think it got a close
reading
> since -07, when John observed that it didn't appear to have ever been
the
> subject of a close and careful reading.
>
> Overlooking the hand waving, you propose to wrap up the IDN WG in six
months.
> I have the impression that even with an IDNA/Nameprep/ACE (amc-z) site
of
> drafts (which I don't support, but that's not the point), that
carefully
> getting to the point of closure of a WG with a complex problem area
would
> take sligtly longer -- given that no draft has yet gone to LC (other
than
> the requirements draft back in February, and possibly more than once
since
> then, corrections welcome). The experience of the http WG comes to
mind.
>
> BTW, your "(bias) summary of reordering discussion" note was the most
> constructive thing I've seen you do.
>
> Eric