Re: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

--On Wednesday, 16 October, 2002 14:06 +0200 Keld Jørn Simonsen
<keld@dkuug.dk> wrote:

>> Keld, this is an old argument in the IDN WG, and I think ISO
>> basically decided to lose it a year or two ago.  While, I,
>> too, prefer to reference ISO standards where possible, the
>> situation here is that the IDN effort needed both a character
>> and code point repertoire and a collection of norms about how
>> those code points were to be used, compared, etc.  My
>> preference, and I think that of the IETF generally, would
>> have been to reference ISO Standards for all of this but, as
>> you know, the complementary "usage" standards did not follow
>> the code point ones.  Even where TRs exist, ISO generally
>> doesn't like having its TRs referenced normatively. 
>> 
>> We approached ISO about the problem of the missing standards
>> at the JTC1 level and stressed that, if they couldn't respond
>> usefully and fairly quickly, we would have to rely on UTC.  We
>> didn't get a response for a long time, and then, in my
>> opinion, were brushed off.  And you are all-too-aware what
>> happened when we tried to work something with SC22... from my
>> perspective, not only did we not get active cooperation, we
>> were deliberately insulted by their "agreeing" to something
>> we had previously told them (formally and informally) we
>> would not accept.  While this was going on, the Unicode folks
>> were actively working with the WG, inviting IETF
>> participation in their meetings and in liaisons with on their
>> Board, and trying to be responsive to our needs in their
>> ongoing work.  I think they are entitled to recognition for
>> those efforts, including having their preferred name for the
>> CCS and associated materials used.  And, if JTC1 wants to
>> isolate themselves from the Internet in this area, and to
>> hint that they are doing so because the IETF is just not
>> important enough to deal with on a peer basis, I don't see any
>> reason to respond by advertising the relevant ISO Standard in
>> more than a footnote.
> 
> Could you give me a reference to the approach from IETF to
> JTC1? As the liaison officer from JTC1/SC2 with IETF I cannot
> remember such a request, so I would like to see it.

As I said, this was not to SC2, but to JTC1 and occurred as a
direct inquiry/request from me (as IAB Chair at the time) to Tom
Frost (as JTC1 Chair at the time).  Since Internationalization
work was being done in several SCs of JTC1 at the time, part of
the question was "where can we really get something done".  And,
since JTC1 has refused to consider a liaison with IETF at that
level, there is no mechanism for causing a formal, documented,
set of contacts.

> The problem with SC22 is that Unicode/L2 has infiltrated it,
> and tries to sabotage the cooperation between ISO and IETF, by
> not having any cooperation being done, like delaying liaison
> or making it in a way that is unacceptable. And also by having
> ISO standards in the area voted down, delayed, or turned into
> TRs. And then working smoothly with IETF directly. Their
> policy sems to be efficient, and this is the behaviour that
> you are rewarding, IMHO.

I'll let someone else comment on most of this description.  But
it seems to me that you are describing a problem within JTC1 and
that it is up to JTC1 to fix it if they, or ISO, care.   If the
P-members of SC22, or of JTC1, believe there is a problem that
needs fixing, they clearly have the power to make other
selections of conveners, to modify work items, or to give clear
instructions to Secretariats about ballots.  And, if I were to
see the problem the way you do, I'd see this documentation
decision on IETF's part as part of the justification for making
some changes, on a "if we proceed this way, that happens, and
ISO becomes ever more irrelevant" basis, rather than just as
rewarding behavior which you find unattractive.

    john



    john