Re: [idn] SUMMARY: reordering strawpoll

["Bruce Thomson" <bthomson@fm-net.ne.jp>]

Written by Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine

> 
> 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.
> 

The chair's stated purpose in asking for comments was to try to get
additional feedback on the interpretation of the results of the poll. Do
you think this is improper? How do you think the wg should move
procedurally to resolve this issue? James obviously feels that he
shouldn't just declare re-ordering to be dead by fiat, and yet it
is clearly outnumbered.

> 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.
> 

Exactly, that's why we are talking.

> 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.
> 

Obviously ACE versioning would allow re-ordering as an optional feature. But
this doesn't really satisfy the people who objected on the basis of complexity,
does it?

> 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.
> 

Sorry, I can't understand this. Can't you say things more simply?
 
Bruce