On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
There is an IESG Telechat tomorrow with 22 documents on it. Outgoing
ADs are trying to clear as much work as possible for the incoming ADs.
So, frankly, I've been focused on these 22 documents, and I will not be
able to read the 140+ page appeal until the IESG Telechat is over.
Thanks for your reader's digest version.
Fair enough; good luck with the effort to clear.
On 3/10/2010 6:20 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
The appeal appears to run 145 pages, at least in my PDF viewer.
Attempting to navigate
this, I see "points of appeal", which has the following text:
"This is why this appeal does not concern the IDNA 2008 document set,
as approved by the IESG, which is now of prime stable importance when
considering the Internet architecture from a user perspective, but
also concerning the way the IESG has approved this IDNA2008 document
not obtaining and inserting a disclaimer from the IAB in turn warning
the Internet users community about the architectural consequences of
the "unusual" strategy that the IETF adopted in this document set "to
insure interoperability" (cf. Mapping document).
not classifying it as an IESG disclaimer warning for the Internet
users community about the necessary incompleteness of the new
introduced IDNA architecture, when compared to IDNA2003, due to its
open nature on the user side.
in spite of the Working Group Summary statement that: "There was an
impasse relating to the mapping of Unicode characters into other
Unicode characters prior to the generation of a punycode equivalent
string to produce an A-label [please see the Definitions document].
This was resolved by introducing the non-normative “mappings”
document", wherein that Mapping document was not simultaneously
approved, but while it should at least have been acknowledged at the
same level as the Rationale document.
in so doing, in not having considered its precautionary duty enough as
it results from the IETF mission, and introducing confusion that is to
be urgently clarified before its consequences might endanger the
entire Internet system architecture and the operational deployment
unsuitability for the reasons detailed in this appeal."
Trying to combine this with the cover page text as best I can, this
appeal seems to request the IESG to
provide a set of warnings around this document and/or a disclaimer
saying that the technology is not ready
Is that interpretation a reasonable approximation of your
understanding of the actions requested of
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Russ Housley
The IESG has received an appeal. It can be found here:
JFC Morfin included these comments in the cover note:
Basically this appeal documents that IDNA2008 enlight capacities
and principles that are built in the Internet technology but that
were not used. This is a great thing. However the IESG has not
included a disclaimer on top of these documents, nor foreseen how
and where the necessary IDNA user-side issues are to be discussed
and documented. This may lead people like me to unpredictably toy
with them without any established Adminance (governance of the tools
to be managed by the Governance) arrangement, or organizations like
ICANN to engage into inappropriate testing.
The document size is impressive. There is three reasons to that:
- the impact on the Internet usage architecture is potentially
- the change is not in the technology, but in the way to consider
the technology and the way it addresses multiplicity. IDNA2008 is
about pople's multilinguization while IDNA2003 was about Unicode's
globalization. This is a big change that multilinguists can discuss.
However, everyone has to understand it simplifies the complexity of
handling multiplicity (RFC 3439 - principle of simplicity) in
conformance with RFC 1858 to do it at fringes. RFC 1958 also advises
to keep the first solution when it works.
- the third reasons is that I do not want to be accused of not having
checked my rationale for Interplus and further Intersem work. NB. I
call Interplus is what I think Internet needs to be able to fully
support the Intersem (that the IDNA2008's approaches simplifies), and
the Intersem is what IDNA2008 introduces: the capacity for brain to
The document is also maintained as a wiki under
The IESG plans address this appeal in the next few weeks, and the IESG
solicits comments on this appeal from the community. Please send
substantive comments to the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by
Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead.
On behalf of the IESG,
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list