Re: [idn] Update Charter revision 2

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

James,

If writing "you have not follow the list" makes you feel better, enjoy.

In 030701c15c37$e463d8b0$1401000a@jamessonyvaio, Subject: [idn] Update
Charter revision 2, you wrote:
> Comments please.
>
>-James Seng
>
>--- CUT HERE ---
...

In 005a01c15c93$4610ab50$1501000a@jamessonyvaio, Re: [idn] Update Charter
revision 2, you wrote:
...
> The note on 23rd is a notice that there will be a new update, not a
> request for discussion.

Now, as to the substance.

Of the changes you propose to the Description section, only one, the 3rd,
has the effect of limiting scope. Whether the limit is useful is another
issue.

The second proposed change:

	The WG work may modify the DNS protocol and other related work
	undertaken by the DNSEXT WG.

	But such changes must be co-ordinated with the DNSEXT WG.

I left off comment on the second sentance because it is unnecessary, no
matter what the first sentance reads, in fact, the very idea that your
off-list discussion has extended to you controlling authority over DNSEXT
is comic.

As to the substance of the proposed change, which is interesting:

> Because you are assuming that IDNA is the only one moving forward. I am
> assuming we will get other proposal.

In your working group there is rough consensus to exclude any non-application
framework, and the DNSEXT WG exists for extensions to the DNS (and in this
context "DNS" is understood not to be an "application", though it sure as heck
is one).

I'm writing a UTF-8 draft (no surprise except how long its taking), and Erik
asked me to send a copy to your working group, but I'm submitting it to the
DNSEXT WG, for consideration to adopt as a working group document, not to your
WG, which I view as out of control and about the worst run WG I've seen in the
decade+ I've been participating in the IETF. To be fair, most of my work since
the mid-80's has been in a more collegial operating systems environment, where
higher levels of professional courtsey are the norm. 

Commenting on the third proposed change, you observed:
...
> I could argue the existing charter allows us to redefine a new
> character code set for the purpose of IDN.
...

Correct. This was the subject of a discussion (off-list) between myself,
the ADs (Erik and Tom), the technical advisors (John and Harald), Patrik,
and both you and Marc.

There is a difference between creating an alternative or alternatives to
iso10646, and discussing CRLF mapping. In your zeal to control the reordering
problem space (and it is complex), you over reached.

> You have obviously twist my words, as usual.

Maybe you made a mistake. Consider the possibility.

> ... I see no valid arguments in your comment.
>
> Thank you but i like to hear from others.

By all means, the work group is more than just some egos let loose on a list.

Eric