Subject: Re: [idn] SUMMARY: reordering strawpoll

From: "Bruce Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:31:54 +0900

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

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:57:51 +0800

> shouldn't just declare re-ordering to be dead by fiat, and yet it

Just one clarification:

strawpoll is just one tool which the chairs used to guage rough
consensus. There are other ways including looking at the discussion
taken place in the group. From these many source of information, the
chairs would then have to make a "decision".

If the chairs make a right guess, then many people happy and we move on.
Some would be unhappy of course but that is why it is "rough". If the
chairs make a wrong guess, then some people are happy, many are unhappy.
Then we will be back to RFC2026 appeal process. (Of course, the unhappy
people can always go thru RFC2026 appeal process even if it is the
former case where there is rough consensus).

Now the strawpoll are done, it tells the chairs and the group some
information. Obviously there are many expert within this group does not
think reordering should be added. However, there are groups of users who
really wants it.

The question now move forward is what we going to do with reordering.
And as co-chair, I heard to comment, in simple summary:

1. Bruce suggest that we drop reordering and move on.

2. Eric suggest we do two proposal, one with reordering, one without,
then move on.

Both are possible next step we can take. But if the co-chairs need to
make a right guess^H^H^H^H^Hdecision on the rough consensus, we need to
see more discussion on the next step. And that is what I am trying to
prompt the group to do.

Please give your feedback thanks.

-James Seng

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 22:37:00 -0500

James,

...
> think reordering should be added. However, there are groups of users who

Nice to see you've got an open mind. Experts agree with you, users don't.
A simple life is an easy one, neh?

> 2. Eric suggest we do two proposal, one with reordering, one without,

Nope. I wrote that there is a question to the editors (of IDNA etc, not
you and Zita, that would be a waste of time) on the ability to accomodate
two divergent requirements in one set of texts.

What I suggest is that reordering is manditory, and having shoved in the
complexity for DOM policy evaluation in two browsers recently, complexity
is a case I haven't seen made yet, except nominally, by those who hope to
put the IDN solution in applications.

I could be wrong, and someone with clue could have a case history to cite,
with lines of code, text/data/bss numbers, and performance data, and that
would be worth being wrong just to see, instead of the usual diet of IDN
drek.

> Please give your feedback thanks.

How erratically polite.

Eric

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:26:15 +0800

> two divergent requirements in one set of texts.

Okay, no problem.

In other words, I have misread your message as to make a suggestion.
Instead, you are posting a question to the editors of IDNA, and
therefore, this suggestion 2 is not within the proposal next step.

Therefore, there is only one other proposed next step by Bruce, namely
to drop reordering and move on.

Comments from others please.

-James Seng

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 10:13:57 -0500

James,

What I suggest is that reordering is manditory, ...

It was in my note, the part you didn't read.

Eric

---

From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:05:57 -0800 (PST)

> Comments from others please.

YES! lets please, drop reordering and move on.

-rick

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:06:04 +0800

> It was in my note, the part you didn't read.

You meant the part I didnt quote? Well, you did say the question is
address to the authors, not to me specifically nor the group. In other
words, I believe the more appropriate person to answer that is the
authors themselves.

Anyway, your suggestion that reordering is manditory is noted. However,
it is clear from the strawpoll that "manditory reordering" is not the
rough consensus of the group.

-James Seng

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 18:31:22 -0500

> rough consensus of the group.

Neither is going bowling. The hard part is what _is_ the rough consensus.

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:37:02 +0800

At the minimual, there is no rough consensus that reordering is to be
added. Therefore, "manditory reordering" is definately not part of the
game.

The question remains if we keep reordering in the pool, continue to work
on it until we have consensus or we drop it or. Or as what I thought you
suggested, to have 2 set of proposals, one with and one without. Or
anything else others could think of.

-James Seng