Re: [idn] Making progress on IDN

["ben" <ben@cc-www.com>]

Many IDN WG participants actually do keep silent- they wait
patiently/politely for the day IDNs work... and wait... and wait...
and wait some more... and then still wait some more.... and wait...
and wait again...

I am sure glad that the IESG has a procedure/schedule to follow and
there is going to be an end to this.  (Whether the answer from the
IESG is "yes" or "no" really is not the point, YES OR NO IS FINE- I
JUST WANT AN ANSWER.)  Otherwise I am serious going to doing something
about changing the name from IETF to PGTF (Peanut Gallery Task Force.)

Thanks,
Ben




----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:53 PM
Subject: [idn] Making progress on IDN


> IDN WG participants,
>
> In a separate note, I've expressed severe disagreement with Dave
> Crocker's "stop discussing this, it is off topic" notes and
> comments.  But I am in agreement with him as considering much of
> the current discussion to be a useless waste of time.
>
> With the understanding that the following is strictly my
> personal opinion...
>
> The charter fairly clearly does not extend to "fixing" mail, or
> URLs, or HTTP, or Unicode.  Arguments that the proposed solution
> won't work properly in those applications may be relevant, but
> please either make new ones or see below.
>
> Substantively, most of the current discussions are going around
> in circles we have toured before.  They have either gotten
> nowhere or been rejected.  Repeating the arguments doesn't
> contribute to understanding, and doesn't seem to be convincing
> anyone, nor does repeating explanations of why particular ideas
> are infeasible or inappropriate seem to be convincing anyone.
> That is a fairly strong argument for stopping the discussions.
> It is, perhaps, an even stronger argument for not responding
> when people try to bring the same old arguments up over and over
> again.
>
> Procedurally, the Co-chairs have sent the specs off to the IESG,
> presumably with an assertion of consensus.    I am not
> recommending this in any way, but, if people believe that
> assertion is incorrect and no consensus exists or that the
> summary and responses to WG Last Call are wildly unreasonable,
> should try to convince the Co-chairs of that, and then, if
> necessary, discuss the problem with the ADs and start looking
> into appeal procedures.   But repeated discussions of the same
> old topics doesn't help with that process either.
>
> Procedurally, I presume that the IESG will either put IDNA, as
> now defined, out for IETF Last Call or will bounce it back to
> the WG on the grounds that either they think it is defective or
> that the WG clearly doesn't have consensus (the recent
> discussions might be taken as evidence for the latter conclusion
> --or just as evidence that a small number of people can make a
> large amount of noise-- but another several days of it will,
> IMO, accomplish nothing).  In principle, the IESG could dump the
> proposal, close the WG, and start over, but I really wouldn't
> expect that (I, deliberately, have _no_ inside information at
> this point).   If they bounce it back, we will have lots of time
> to restart this wrangling and whining.  On the other hand, if
> they put it out for IETF Last Call, there traditionally isn't a
> lot of room in that process for alternate proposals: people who
> don't like IDNA, as written, should, if they believe it is bad
> enough, start organizing arguments as to why it is a
> fundamentally bad idea or basically too defective or problematic
> to be an IETF Proposed Standard.
>
> But, right now, I'd suggest that IDNA supporters should take a
> virtual vacation until an IETF Last Call appears or the ADs say
> something definitive (and, in particular, stop trying to
> persuade or educate those who clearly are not going to be
> convinced) and that IDNA opponents start --probably offline from
> the IDN list-- organizing their thoughts and arguments rather
> than trying to persuade the unpersuadable.
>
> So, appealing to common sense rather than creative reading or
> interpretations of charters or IETF procedures, let's give it a
> rest.
>
>      john
>
>