Subject: [idn] statements from wg co-chairs

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 20:05:29 -0500

Chairs have reviewed the current state of the wg. We intend to focus wg 
efforts on completing the on-going work quickly.

James & Marc.

===========================================================================
============
Consistent with this focus, we are taking the following actions:

=============================
draft-ietf-idn-hangeulchar-xx.txt

This document is an attempt to modify normalisation rules of the Unicode 
standard.
The chairs with AD advice have concluded that this work is not
within IETF competence and should be conducted in other appropriate 
organisations.

=============================
draft-ietf-idn-tsconv-xx.txt

The chairs with AD advice have concluded that all parts of this work is 
outside
of the scope of idn wg.  The parts of this work that fall within IETF scope
should be proposed for inclusion in other ietf efforts (eg. irnss).

===========================================================================
============
We are also proposing the following:

=============================
draft-ietf-idn-lsb-ace-xx.txt

The chairs see no consensus in the working group to add this work in the
architecture.  The chairs are proposing to drop this document from the
document pool.

=============================
draft-ietf-idn-requirements-xx.txt

The chairs with AD advice have concluded that the requirements are
outdated, are no longer in sync with working group activities and
have some technical errors.  Rather than attempt to fix the document,
we propose to drop the document in its current form and replace with a new
short document that captures the approach the idn wg is taking and what we 
have
learned about the problems we are solving. We expect this work being 
completed
in a short time (i.e. weeks).

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 06:00:27 -0500

Marc,

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.

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, 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. 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).

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.

Eric

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:44:20 -0500

-- lundi, décembre 10, 2001 06:00:27 -0500 Eric Brunner-Williams in 

> Marc,

and James, we are two co-chairs.

> XiaoDong et alia's tsconv draft.

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

> 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
> 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
> 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.

> 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.
------------------------------------------

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:54:47 -0500

Marc,

I look forward to your analysis as eagerly as I look forward to your
conclusions, and hope that one always accompanies the other.

You propose to abandon the requirements draft and start something else.

I didn't agree with your proposal. Is that clearer?

Eric

---

From: [email-masked] (J. William Semich)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:56:06 -0500

I agree with Eric's reasoning. I would oppose moving to final protocol 
drafts without first getting agreement on a final requirements draft.

Bill Semich