Subject: [EAI] The -08 draft

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:22:11 +0000

This error was unintentional and the result of a miscommunication between myself and Yang.  It can be rolled back, (is that something I can do or does Abel need to do it?) although now I suppose the ideas are out there.

This document was intended to be offered as a possible simplification that might resolve some of the concerns that the working group has.  IMO, it serves the intent of what we've been trying to do.  You'll recognize some of the text as Dave's wording, and the additional names were not intentionally added to avoid the processes, but was rather an unfortunate error and misunderstanding.

-------

This working group is composed primarily of a lot of people who do NOT have a "history" in the IETF.  Myself and others may accidentally make procedural errors without intending any slights.  We also don't know about the politics and infighting within the IETF.  I think that most of the members of the rank and file members, and editors, of this working group are interested primarily in solving EAI, and we don't particularly like being in the middle of extraneous IETF politics.  I expect contributions to be considered on their own merits, and not on personal history of the person who had the idea.

Dave's original feedback to this WG was very misguided and he didn't have the perspective of the working group.  Some of his more recent ideas seem very useful, without some of the preconceptions the WG has had, and very much aligned with the recent discussion of the working group.  This very-much-revised document contains lots of his thinking, so it seemed only fair to add his name.  Abel and I are in agreement that this is a decent proposal, though we realize that the WG had intended to wait to post another document, and we realize that the changes are big enough to warrant further review.

We're trying hard, but we're going to make mistakes.

---------------------

I will endeavor to rectify any procedural errors, but, since the ideas are visible at the moment, I'd appreciate any comments on the ideas in the mis-posted document.  If necessary, please pretend that the additional names are absent.

-Shawn

--On Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:06 +0000 Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov at isode.com> wrote:

> Internet-Drafts at ietf.org wrote:
>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>> Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the
>> Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>>
>> Title           : Internationalized Email Headers
>> Author(s)       :  . Yang, et al.
>> Filename        : draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-08.txt
>> Pages           : 12
>> Date            : 2011-01-24
>...
> This version contains changes that are not yet officially
> agreed by the WG and also includes changes that weren't even
> discussed in the WG.
>
> I would ask editors to rollback the changes, unless chairs
> tell me that this version was actually authorized by at least
> one of them.

At least this co-chair was as surprised as you were.  I thought
we had an agreement that no more drafts were to be posted
without an official announcement of consensus on the points
covered.  I'm assuming that Joseph will start posting such
announcements relatively soon, but I haven't seen them.

This is perhaps also an appropriate time to remind everyone that
Editors are appointed by WG Chairs with the advice and consent
of ADs, not by other editors.

    john

-Shawn

 
http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:16:43 -0500

--On Tuesday, January 25, 2011 16:22 +0000 Shawn Steele
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> This error was unintentional and the result of a
> miscommunication between myself and Yang.  It can be rolled
> back, (is that something I can do or does Abel need to do it?)
> although now I suppose the ideas are out there.
> 
> This document was intended to be offered as a possible
> simplification that might resolve some of the concerns that
> the working group has.  IMO, it serves the intent of what
> we've been trying to do.  You'll recognize some of the text as
> Dave's wording, and the additional names were not
> intentionally added to avoid the processes, but was rather an
> unfortunate error and misunderstanding.

Shawn,

To clarify this situation from my point of view -- Alexey and/or
Joseph may feel differently -- there are two very separate sets
of issues here:

One was an explicit instruction to the author group -- from
Alexey, Joseph, and myself-- to avoid posting new drafts until
after Joseph announced decisions about the consensus calls.  The
reason for that instruction, which I think we explained at the
time, was simply to avoid confusion in the WG about competing
drafts, what text was assumed to represent consensus and what
was draft text for consideration, what the relationship was
between suggestions on the list and text in the drafts, etc.

Those goals derive simply from a desire to clearly identify
points of agreement and disagreement and make rapid progress.
They have little or nothing to do with IETF-specific procedures
although the ability and authority to give that sort of
direction and expect it to be followed is integral to the
ability of WG Chairs to manage WGs (and to ADs to manage the WGs
and/or the Chairs).  Anyone in the author group (or anyone in
the WG) who didn't like those instructions was free to initiate
a discussion with the co-Chairs or the AD, including filing an
appeal if the disagreement could not be resolved.

The second group of issues may or may not be tied up with subtle
IETF procedures, whatever you believe or have been told about
personal histories, etc.

While some reactions along the lines of that second group of
issues may be inevitable --we are, after all, dealing with
people here-- I believe that the reactions you saw from Alexey
and myself this morning were strictly derived from that first
group and the desire to keep the WG moving forward rather than
having it distracted by confusion about consensus, side-issues,
competing drafts that address different topics, etc.

At this point, I believe that it would be helpful if whomever of
you or Abel did the actual posting were to drop a note to the
Secretariat (at [email-masked]) indicating that the
draft was posted by mistake and asking that it be taken down.
Please copy Joseph, Alexey, and myself -- it will save time.

Beyond that, I strongly recommend that we just move on to
announcements about consensus, new drafts based on those
announcements (which, if Joseph concludes the WG has reached
consensus on the subject, should include these ABNF changes to
5335bis and corresponding changes to 5336bis), and then seeing
if the WG is enough in agreement with those new drafts to
progress them to the IESG.  I see that as the fastest path to
getting these documents finished and approved -- a goal on which
I hope we all still agree.  If you disagree with that as a
strategy, we should discuss it --ideally on the WG list rather
than a series of private discussions or negotiations-- rather
than doing anything that appears to be preemptive (whether that
was the intent or not).

best,
    john