Re: [idn] statements from wg co-chairs

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>]

-- lundi, décembre 10, 2001 06:00:27 -0500 Eric Brunner-Williams in 
Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote/a écrit:

> Marc,

and James, we are two co-chairs.

>
> You've provided an analysis and rational for action w.r.t. Soobok and
> GyeongSeog's hangul draft.
>
> You've provided a conclusion without an analysis for action w.r.t.
> XiaoDong et alia's tsconv draft.

good point. we will write something that will give the analysis more 
clearer.

>
> I trust you appreciate that it is difficult to agree with, or disagree
> with, a conclusion that lacks an analysis, and you will rectify this
> as soon as possible.
>
> The proposal to drop a document (Soobok's reordering draft) having three
> times the entry metric is odd,

the entry metric is a way to make sure that there is some constituency on a 
document. However, this doesn't mean that all documents will be considered 
by the wg as moving forward to RFC.  Our reading of the strawpoll is that 
there is no clear consensus on moving this document forward.

> and makes probable some 20 comments during
> the WGLC period that the naive-ordering document(s) lack reordering -- I
> guess you knew that already.
>
> Substituting a "roadmap" document for a "requirements" document is one
> solution. I'd hoped to fix the editorial problem, and not discard the
> work already captured by the editors, or ignored by the editors, and
> loose context.
>
> To state that a draft under working group change control is outdated,
> no longer in sync, and has errors, means that the editors are not
> responsive to the working group.

that is not our reading. but the important thing is to move forward.

> The usual remedy is to thank-and-excuse
> the editor(s), and find an interested and competent person or persons to
> be responsive to the working group.
>
> I think that a "roadmap" proposal is sound. However, there was work
> earlier, now abandoned, in the idn-compare-NN drafts (Hoffman).

no work is abandoned. there is many sources of information to use for the 
new document.

>
> I think that a "requirements-that-meet-the-roadmap" draft would not be
> a complete substitute for a "requirements" draft.
>
> I think that a "no requirements" proposal is not sound.
>
> I propose the WG thanks-and-excuse the current editors of the requirements
> draft, and solicit new editor(s) for the requirements draft.

so you agree with our proposal. thanks. Marc.

>
> Eric
>



------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Viagénie
tel: +1-418-656-9254x225

------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------
http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft),
  IANA,W3C,... standards.
------------------------------------------