Re: [idn] SUMMARY: reordering strawpoll

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

Someone, possibly neither Bruce Thomson nor Liana Ye, at some prior point in
time wrote that the purpose of the chairs in conducting a poll was:

	...
	to guage the consensus of the working group on reordering
	...


The question set was:

	Do you agree to include reordering (draft-ietf-idn-lsb-ace)
	into NAMEPREP-ACE architecture?


I sent a poll reply, which the poll takers recorded, and I think that Bruce's
comments on the subject are uninteresting as any that could be offered on the
analysis of mailing addresses of a set of IETF contributors.

The draft is self-explanitory, no justification is offered, nor is necessary.

If the chair failed to understand the draft, and is seeking clarification, or
if the working group failed to understand the draft, and the chair is seeking
clarification, then that is an appropriate query to send to the authors.

There is no consensus on reordering in the NAMEPREP-ACE architecture, and a
course of action is to construe a meaning that reording is "out", another 
course of action is to construe a meaning that reordering is "in". Neither
is especially consistent with this straw poll's data, nor consensus as a
process.

Can the editors of the affected documents accommodate both reordering and
no-reordering in the same documents from this point forward? I think this
is the better question, rather than trying to finesse "the right answer"
by proxy.

If yes, then the working docs delta with consequences (e.g., [30] comes back).
If no, then the working docs branch into disjoint and seperate trees with
consequences (e.g., "this assumes lsb" and "this assumes no lsb"), and each
proceeds to WG-LC, IESG review, and IETF-wide-LC, and whatever status, and
deployment future lies ahead, for each, both, or neither.

Eric