Subject: [idn] time to move

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 09:51:31 -0400

Hi,
	In december, the wg came to a rough concensus on the idna-nameprep-ace 
proposals to be forwarded as the recommendation of the wg to the IESG. In 
the recent months, a patent claim was discussed.  Some members of the wg 
told the wg that they do not think that the proposals are covered by a 
patent claim.  Other members of the wg are uncertain about patent's 
relevance to the wg.  No formal legal opinions have been offered to the group.
	The current working group documents are:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-idna-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-nameprep-03.txt

These documents may have further revisions. Final revision would be sent 
for wg last call. The ACE design team is waiting for the confirmation of 
the wg orientation to propose to the wg the ACE choice.
	The chairs would like to make an electronic straw poll to reverify the 
concensus obtained in december. You have to understand that this will help 
the chairs to identify concensus.  If we think we have reached concensus, 
then the authors of the documents as well as the ACE design team will be 
requested to finish their work so that all documents would be forwarded to 
IESG.

	The results of the straw poll will be public.

	Please follow the instructions below. Send a email to 
[email-masked]
   with in the subject: AgreeOnIdna-nameprep-ace   if you agree with 
retaining the IDNA technical approach
  or with in the subject: DisagreeOnIdna-nameprep-ace   if you disagree 
with pursuing IDNA and, instead, feel that an alternative approach should 
be pursued.

If you agree, you need not put anything in the body!
If you disagree, then the body of the email should contain a reference to a 
internet draft suggested as your alternative.

For your convenience:
Agree: mailto:[email-masked]?Subject:AgreeOnIdna-nameprep-ace
Disagree: 
mailto:[email-masked]?Subject:DisagreeOnIdna-nameprep-ace

The straw poll will conclude on wednesday May 23rd 2001, 23h59 
GMT.  Counting will be done by a few members of the working group (Dave 
Crocker, Rick Wesson, James Seng, Marc Blanchet) and results will be posted 
as soon as possible.

Thanks for participating

Marc & James.

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 May 2001 23:50:57 -0000

Could we please have a single clear statement of what exactly this poll
is measuring?

Many of us think that moving at this point would be premature. We think
that IDNA was rammed through the WG without adequate discussion. We find
it worrisome that the centerpiece of the IDNA ``design philosophy'' is a
statement about DNS servers that has turned out to be completely wrong.
We want to see a careful cost-benefit analysis, with all facts verified,
before we go screwing around with several critical Internet protocols.
And, of course, we want to know the effects of this patent.

How exactly are we supposed to respond to this poll?

---Dan

---

From: "Edmon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:35:51 -0400

I think we are still discussing possible alternatives and from your
instructions we have to point to a current I-D if we disagree.
I am thinking that there would be one or more new I-Ds coming out from the
discussion of possible alternatives discussed here in the mailing list
therefore I think it is premature to do this just yet.  Or it should be
possible to vote for "disagree" without pointing to a particular I-D.
Edmon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 9:51 AM
Subject: [idn] time to move

> Agree:
mailto:[email-masked]?Subject:AgreeOnIdna-nameprep-ace

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:27:24 -0700

Dan,

>Could we please have a single clear statement of what exactly this poll

The language in the polling question is quite thorough.  If you do not 
understand portions of it, you should consider asking specific questions 
about that language.

>Many of us think that moving at this point would be premature.

Making an assertion like "many of us" is a bit ironic, given that the 
purpose of the poll is to get a sense of proportionate preference.

Your making such an assertion suggests that you have already done such a 
survey, unbeknownst to the rest of the working group.

>We think
>that IDNA was rammed through the WG without adequate discussion.

A process which first establishes rough consensus and then returns to 
re-verify that consensus can hardly be called "rammed through".

>We find

What statement is that?

>We want to see a careful cost-benefit analysis, with all facts verified,

The nice thing about the IETF process is that people who feel strongly 
about a requirement are free to pursue its development.

It's fine to propose such analyses -- though quite unusual -- but once the 
working group does not choose to take on the task, you are always free to 
gather worker bees around the task and buzz through the task.

>How exactly are we supposed to respond to this poll?

Why are you asking such a question after you already sent in your own response?

d/

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

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 May 2001 22:09:53 -0000

> Why are you asking such a question after you already sent in your own

The only choices provided were ``agree with retaining the IDNA technical
approach'' and ``disagree with pursuing IDNA and, instead, feel that an
alternative approach should be pursued.''

The poll didn't provide any way to say ``evaluate the options carefully;
this is a major decision; moving right now is premature.''

I sent a ``disagree'' response because it seems that the poll-takers
will interpret ``agree'' responses as a reason to rush forward without
considering the facts. But the fact that I've sent a response doesn't
mean that I'm happy with the form of the poll.

> survey, unbeknownst to the rest of the working group.

I'm paying attention to the messages on the mailing list. Are you?

> > statement about DNS servers that has turned out to be completely wrong.

``To date, the proposals for IDN protocols have required that DNS
servers be updated to handle internationalized host names.''

---Dan

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:37:39 -0700

>this is a major decision; moving right now is premature.''

You prompt a number of interesting points.

One is that it is remarkable how anyone can fail to see the urgency in this 
situation.  It takes really quite an unusual effort to miss the import of 
the current situation and the scope of pressure being applied to resolve it 
quickly.

The second is how productive it would be to have every participant demand 
exactly the precise wording for the questionnaire that they want.  It does 
wonders to survey research validity.  (The ability to cope with inadequate 
choice is a rather interesting personality characteristic that psych types 
like to measure.  It pertains to maturity.)

>I'm paying attention to the messages on the mailing list. Are you?

Of course not, Dan.  Why bother, when all I need to do is read your 
messages to find out the One True Truth.

For example, think how remarkable it is that you are so clear on the sense 
of the mailing list.  Why bother to take a straw poll?

And what will it mean if the rough consensus from the poll differs from 
your own, flawless assessment of the group?

>servers be updated to handle internationalized host names.''

Well, let's see:

1.  It is certainly true that typical approaches to the problem have 
required changes to the servers

2.  It does not matter whether that assessment is correct.  The center 
piece to the design philosophy is that it requires no change to server 
protocol engines or data base modules; it does not matter whether other 
proposals have that characteristic or not.

d/

----------

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 May 2001 15:45:48 -0000

More procedural flaws with this poll: the Subject line doesn't identify
it as a poll; and the deadline, today, is only three days after the poll
was announced.

Dave Crocker writes:
> For example, think how remarkable it is that you are so clear on the
> sense of the mailing list.  Why bother to take a straw poll?

I didn't say anything about ``the sense of the mailing list.'' I said
``Many of us think that moving at this point would be premature.'' Do
you understand what the word ``many'' means? 

> The center piece to the design philosophy is that it requires no
> change to server protocol engines or data base modules; it does not
> matter whether other proposals have that characteristic or not.

Of course it matters. Proposals compete on their merits. The very first
sentence of the IDNA ``design philosophy'' is the incorrect claim that
all previous proposals require changes to DNS servers.

---Dan

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:41:15 -0700

>it as a poll; and the deadline, today, is only three days after the poll

Only two more flaws?  Dan, you can do better than that.  Remember, this is 
a survey and survey research involves extraordinarily subtle forces.

oops.  it's really a straw poll.  not a precise measure of the group.

>you understand what the word ``many'' means?

Indeed.  The style of use that you employed is for the purpose of conveying 
import.  It attempts to claim that their is a substantial force behind a 
statement.

Unfortunately it is typically used as a debating technique when there is 
little real and objective substance to the "Many".  That is, where "many" 
really is more like the meaning used in very early societies, with limited 
math.  They would count one, two three, many.

>all previous proposals require changes to DNS servers.

The merit of a proposal is based on its technical content, Dan.

d/

----------