On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That seems to cover most angles. I can't see why the IESG could be
expected to add technical disclaimers to a consensus document. In fact,
doing so would probably be a process violation in itself.
Well, ok, and yes it probably would be a violation. But to defend the
appelant, there might be a serious (though in my view totally wrong)
point in the appeal.
I'm extremely uncomfortable speculating about what M. Morfin really
means (yes, I am entering that in the understatement of the year
competition), but I think his substantive point is that the IDNA2008
use doesn't provide regular, non-technical Internet users with a
complete, totally functional, rich experience that is unsurprising to
them given their regular language. I think the point about
disclaimers is that he thinks the publication premature, given that it
can't provide that experience. So the documents should come with a
warning that more work is to be done. That's more specific than the
general and standard disclaimer.
As I argued previously, such a view gets almost completely wrong the
way the IETF standards process works. If that were the bar we had to
jump, nothing would ever go out without such a warning. Soon we'd be
plastering our RFCs with warnings about the hot drink inside, and so
on. Maybe we'd even have to warn people about the possibility of
cookies causing complaints on mailing lists. One almost anticipates
the day when each addition to the RFC series is actually just new
boilerplate, and nothing else.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf