Subject: Re: [idn] UTF-8 as the long-term IDN solution

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 08:41:42 -0400

I am writing to support the WG chairs. IDN has been a particularly
contentious and multidimentsional problem. IETF working groups are not
run by voting or polls but by the chair's judgement of consensus and
how to achieve progress on the charter.  Although polls can, in some
cases, be useful, they occur only at the discretion of the chair. The
appeals path if you don't like the chair's judgement is quite clear,
it goes to the Area Director, and then the IESG. It specifically does
not include the poised mailing list.

Although I haven't seen that much evidence of consensus on the point,
it's possible that there is an IDN WG consensus that the "long-term"
solution is UTF-8, where long term is >10 years. But I believe the
charter of the WG is to do something a lot sooner than that and I do
not believe there is a consensus to just send UTF-8 in the near term.

I do not see any bias in the chairs. On the other hand, over several
years, I have observed what I believe is consistent trigger happy
posting of ad hominum attacks by Mr. Bernstein in violaiton of the
draft IETF document which the POISSON WG insists on calling a "Code of
Coduct.

Donald

From:  "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:  <00e901c10d9c$8c55d860$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio>
To:  "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>,
            <[email-masked]>
References:  <[email-masked]>
<[email-masked]
> <[email-masked]>
Date:  Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:10:56 +0800

>> I believe that the IDN WG has consensus on the following point: ``The
>> long-term IDN solution will encode Unicode characters as UTF-8 on the
>> wire.'' I find the other possibilities absurd, and I am dismayed at
>the
>> amount of time that has been wasted discussing them on the IDN list.
>
>I speak for myself in this note. (Marc may have different opinion)
>
>The working groups works based on ideas documented in internet drafts
>and not a broad statement/claim.
>
>> On 2001-05-29 I requested that the the IDN WG chairs run a poll to
see
>> whether we do, in fact, have consensus on this point.
>>
>> ``I would like to hear some support on this before we run this
poll,''
>> James Seng said, speaking as chair.
>>
>> He promptly heard some support, but he did not run the poll. I asked
>why
>> the chairs were not running the poll. There was no response.
>
>First, there is a response: I requested you to point to an internet
>draft which you are referring or write a draft yourself.
>
>Secondly, strawpoll are not fun events which we conduct -- it is very
>time-consuming. Surprisingly, I still have a day-time job.
>
>Thirdly, strawpoll are useful, but not neccessary, when the chairs
wants
>to know if there is a consensus on a particular *draft*.
>
>And last, but not the least, there is a existing announced process to
>split the wg drafts into Pool W for drafts with 7 supporters and Pool T
>for others. If you strongly feel about your idea, please write a draft,
>gather 7 supporters, then come back to the working group with your
>draft.
>
>> I accuse the chairs of bias in their selection of polls. They appear
>to
>> be running polls that they believe will promote their personal
>agendas,
>> and refusing to run any other polls. Does the IETF have any
procedures
>> to fix this problem?
>
>You are free to form any conspiracy theory you like in your personal
>thoughts. But making these theory into public statement requires
>substained evidences.
>
>If anyone feels the wg chairs is act inappropriatly, a private note to
>IESG would usually do the job. Given that a number of IESG and IAB
>members are on this list, any wrongdoing would be note almost
>immediately.
>
>Once in a while, certain individual in the wg have louder voice than
>others and repeat his opinion often enough. Fortunately, the IETF
>process does not guage consensus based on decibel level or number of
>emails sent. Instead, we work on Internet Drafts and consensus, ie.
each
>and every wg members' views are taken into consideration. A louder
voice
>does not make anyone more important than others.
>
>And the wg chairs are here to assist the process, not to conduct
>strawpoll for individual whims. Thank you.
>
>-James Seng
>

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:32:42 -0400 (EDT)

Speaking as co-Chair of POISSON, as important as this discussion is the
only part of it that is relevant to POISSON (and its poised mailing
list) is the one question Dan asked, repeated below for your
convenience.

Please trim the "cc" list on all discussion to exclude the poised
mailing list unless you are answering this question:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

Thanks,

Jim
--
James M. Galvin <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Ian King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:47:08 -0700

Sounds to me like this is the ADs' job.  I know that in the past, I've
seen an AD replace a chair who was not forwarding the work of the group.
Obviously, it's a pretty extreme remedy. =20

Do NOT intepret this as an endorsement from me that a particular chair
needs to be replaced; I'm only commenting on process.  -- Ian=20

-----Original Message-----
From: D. J. Bernstein [mailto:[email-masked]]=20
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:29 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: UTF-8 as the long-term IDN solution

Keith Moore writes:
 > I believe this is adequately addressed in RFC 2026, section 6.5.

I don't see how.

RFC 2026, section 6.5, is for cases where someone disagrees with ``a
Working Group recommendation.''

What's happening in this case is completely different. There is no
recommendation. There are a huge number of WG members who

    (1) agree that UTF-8 will be the long-term solution;
    (2) suspect that there's consensus in the WG on #1; and
    (3) believe that establishing consensus would save time for the WG.

But the chair, who disagrees with #1, is stonewalling, in violation of
his responsibility under RFC 2418 to ensure forward progress.

As you can see from http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html, I've
already tried using the RFC 2026 process to handle procedural problems,
specifically DNSEXT mailing list censorship, which has been roundly
criticized in POISSON recently. The process took more than two years.
The basic problem still isn't fixed.

I don't want IDN to wait two years. There needs to be a mechanism for
the WG to act over the opposition of the chair. IETF doesn't seem to
have any such mechanism.

---Dan

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:14:02 -0700

D.J. And all,

  I agree with D.J. here that a straw poll would be a good idea at this
juncture.

D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> James Seng/Personal writes:
> > I requested you to point to an internet draft
>
> Your request is noted.
>
> In the meantime, please run the poll. A two-week poll will leave
enough
> time for people to get back from vacation. The agree/disagree
statement,
> as I've told you repeatedly, is as follows: ``The long-term IDN
solution
> will encode Unicode characters as UTF-8 on the wire.''
>
> I think we have consensus on this one aspect of what's going to
happen.
> If I'm right, then we can stop wasting time discussing silly
ACE-forever
> scenarios that aren't going to happen. Please stop stonewalling.
>
> > strawpoll for individual whims
>
> Excuse me? Many people have announced their support for UTF-8 as the
> long-term solution. Only a few people have objected. When you stalled
by
> saying ``I would like to hear some support on this before we run this
> poll,'' you immediately saw some public messages of support. For
> example, here's what Bruce Thomson said:
>
>    It is likely that we have consensus on this point, and it would be
>    well worth the effort of a straw poll to establish this, so we can
>    move on.
>
> How you can call this an ``individual whim'' is beyond me.
>
> ---Dan

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:32:37 -0700

At 11:47 AM 7/16/2001, Ian King wrote:
>Obviously, it's a pretty extreme remedy.

Folks, unfortunately the IETF is mostly populated by well-meaning, earnest 
people who take all criticisms seriously.

It leaves us open to a deprivation of service attack by the occasional 
participant who is more interested in disruption than in progress.

Continued responses on the mailing list, to Dan's limited but peristent 
variety of harangues serve only to distract the group.

I strongly urge all non-"management" personnel (ie, anyone not a WG chair 
or an AD) to refrain from responding to Dan's periodic challenges... unless 
of course you really, really, REALLY believe he is raising a major 
criticism that has strong validity.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:12:19 -0700

Dave and all,

  Well than why are you responding here Dave? This has made
the third response to Dan thus far on this thread.  Has your Troll virus
got the better of you again?  See: http://www.dnso.com/incompetence/
for reference...

Regards,