Subject: [edu-team] Fwd: Re: WG Chairs Lunch for IETF 92

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:00:36 +0100

Thanks, Andrew! We'll post them on the edu team wiki and the main IETF
web side.

Edu-Team, please see Andrew's and Peter's slides attached. Will one of
you be at the WG chairs lunch?

Regards,
Mirjam

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: WG Chairs Lunch for IETF 92
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:12:06 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
To: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
CC: Stephanie McCammon <[email-masked]>

Hi,

Here are slides I'm going to use.  There are two decks.  One is mine,
the other comes from Peter Saint-André; I have it there as background
in cases some background details are needed.

If you have comments or worries, please don't hesitate to raise them.

A

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:03:03AM +0100, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
> 
> The WG chairs lunch will be on "PRECIS". The speaker will be Andrew
> Sullivan. See below a description Andrew sent.
> 
> Andrew, is there anything else you need for the WG chairs lunch in
> Dallas? We will make sure someone from the Edu Team will be there to
> take note and introduce the topics.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mirjam
> ========
> 
>    Internationalization has caused problems for lots of protocols.
>    The PRECIS working group is apparently about to publish the
>    document that can give people a new framework for dealing with the
>    issue.  There are some pitfalls and tricks, however. This session
>    is intended both to introduce WG chairs to how the new system
>    works and how it can be used by protocols, to understand current
>    pain that WGs face in order to make sure that the guidance
>    document (about to be tackled), and to point out some of the
>    compromises that you still have to make to use the precis
>    framework conveniently.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:46:10 -0400

There is going to be an update: someone caught a problem (grr -- a month after posting for comments!). 

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 5:00, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> <i18n-tutorial.pdf>
> <precis-for-chairs.pdf>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:41:34 +1300

I will be there for one. Do you want me to do the intro?

Regards
   Brian

On 12/03/2015 22:00, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team
>

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:23:59 +0100

> I will be there for one. Do you want me to do the intro?

Yes, that would be great. Thanks, Brian. And maybe you could find
someone who will take notes?

Regards,
Mirjam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:50:51 +1300

> someone who will take notes?

Will do. Will we be live streamed and recorded too?

   Brian

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:31:34 +0100

Hi Brian,

> Will do. Will we be live streamed and recorded too?

The secretariat confirmed that the session will be both recorded and
streamed.

Mirjam

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:30:10 -0500

Hi,

Here's an update to the lunch session slides.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:24:45 -0400

> Here's an update to the lunch session slides.

Quick review...

Slide 3 should probably say "alas, use languages and write them
down" or something to that effect.

Slide 10: The second example is particularly interesting
because, if "A with ring" is really a symbol for Angstrom (or,
if you prefer, "ångström" (which I believe rhymes with
"Fältström")), Unicode believes it is a different and distinct
abstract character.

Slide 11: Might be worth mentioning that, Unicode ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Procrustes notwithstanding, case folding conventions are not the
same even within locale-related writing system variations for
the same language.   We talk about CaseFolding and toCaseFold as
if they are a single deterministic operation (and IDNA2003
certainly treated them that way) but the discussion of case
relationships in The Unicode Standard makes the existence of
these language and locale issues quite clear.  In that sense,
toCaseFold and CaeeFolding.txt are not really
"locale-independent case folding" as TUS claims.  Instead they
are "locale-ignored" with the effect of "some languages and
locales win and others lose".  "Optional, alternative, Turkic"
case folding exists, but using it takes us back into the space
in which one needs to know the language in order to do the right
thing.  And other languages and sub-scripts that make
distinctions not present in CaseFolding.txt just lose. 

Again, that view is not particularly radical.  TUS is quite
clear: "Caseless matching is only an approximation of the
language-specific rules..." (Section 5.18 of Unicode 7.0 (and
6.2).  But that approximation means that the Law of Least
Astonishment is violated for people who expect their languages
and scripts to work in the "usual" way.

Slide 13: May be worth mentioning that some compatibility
equivalences are (almost?) always safe and harmless, such as
width-matching in relevant scripts while others seriously lose
information.

Slide 20, bullet 4: Paralleling the "oops" and "NFKC" notes,
consider adding "(No Turkic or other local versions)"

Slide 22: Add to or change "can yield phishing" to "false
positives or negatives depending on user perceptions and local
issues".  I fear that any time phishing is mentioned without
qualification and/or other examples, we end up with the rants on
the LUCID list that this is all about fraud and its mitigation
rather than other issues.

Slide 24: I think the slide is ok, but you should make it clear
that the issues is the application of a contextual rule, not the
existence of such a rule.  That is particularly important
because IDNA2008 does not require application (i.e., testing) of
CONTEXTO rules on lookup although it does require testing that
the CONTEXTO rule exists and does require testing of CONTEXTJ
rules for relevant code points.  (Section 5.4 of RFC 5891 if
anyone is interested.)  My recollection is that PRECIS is a
little vague about this, whether or not it should be.

Slide 26: I think I've said this before, but, from an actual
protocol standpoint, nothing "requires" variants and mapping
was/insufficient and unworkable for the original case that lead
to variants.  Perhaps you should say "stimulated calls for" or
something like that instead of "require".

Slide 31: This can probably be said rather than put on the
slide, but "wants" at the end of that slide might reasonably be
supplemented by "or has fantasies about".  Note the recent
discussion about "I♥NY" with U+2665 versus its relatives with
U+2661 and U+2764.

Slide 32, last line (and next-to-last line of Slide 33):
"different than" instead of "different to" ??  Remember you are
in Texas, not wherever "different to" might be normal.

Slide 36: Actually, it is an exception.  If it weren't, that
long discussion of Hamza (actually, both long discussions) in
TUS would not be necessary.  The point is instead that there are
lots of other exceptions to keep it company.  TUS _still_ says
no code points in a given script assigned on the basis of
language.  You probably want to explicitly advertise LUCID at
that point.. and add the two LUCID I-Ds somewhere (before of
after Slide 38?) for extra-credit reading.

Generally, you see this as "what WG Chairs need to know about
PRECIS", but what they want, need, and will assume they are
getting is "what WG Chairs need to know about i18n".

    Have a good time.  Sorry I can't join you (but not very
sorry).

    john

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:31:20 -0500

I fear, given a couple of John's remarks, that the updated set didn't
come through last time, and when I re-exported I discovered why.  (Why
exactly the standard interface on MacOS exports to the last directory
anyone ever exported to but saves the file in the same directory you
started in is a little beyond me).  Anyway, _this_ is the right slide deck.

(The St.Peter slides should not have changed, and should still be
available too.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:16:11 -0400

--On Sunday, 22 March, 2015 13:31 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I fear, given a couple of John's remarks, that the updated set
> didn't come through last time, and when I re-exported I
> discovered why.  (Why exactly the standard interface on MacOS
> exports to the last directory anyone ever exported to but
> saves the file in the same directory you started in is a
> little beyond me).  Anyway, _this_ is the right slide deck.
> 
> (The St.Peter slides should not have changed, and should still
> be available too.)

Glad we caught it.
I'll try to study these and the latest LUCID deck later tonight.

  john

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:54:26 +0100

Thanks, Andrew. The slides are uploaded to the Edu Team wiki:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF92

and will also be on the main IETF web side:
https://www.ietf.org/edu/wg-and-bof-chair-presentations.html
(together with the recording and the notes once these are available).

Brian Carpenter will moderate the session.

Kind regards,
Mirjam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:35:03 +1300

EDU team: the session went well, lively Q/A at the end, finished with
10 minutes to spare, audience happy, perfect.

Andrew: Thanks again. And do you still think this should also be
done as a Sunday tutorial? We have already filled the slots
for Prague (we hope) so should this be a candidate for IETF 94
(Yokohama)? We want to make our provisional list for that meeting
about 10 hours from now ;-)

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:54:03 -0500

I suspect an i18n thing for Sunday would also be useful.  Perhaps not exactly the same thing, but yes.  

> On Mar 25, 2015, at 21:35, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:01:17 +1300

Andrew,

OK, EDU put this on the provisional schedule for Yokohama.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter