Joel, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to chat about the review team.
Alissa > On Aug 10, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > No problem on the time. I appreciated Barry's ack. > Further on your response below. > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/10/2019 2:13 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >> Joel, >> My apologies for not being able to respond to this sooner. I've >> been preoccupied for the last couple of days with some non-IETF >> matters. Inline below. >> --On Thursday, August 8, 2019 19:23 -0700 Joel Halpern via >> Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>> Review result: Ready with Nits >>> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General >>> Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being >>> processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these >>> comments just like any other last call comments. >>> >>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>> >>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Document: draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02 >>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>> Review Date: 2019-08-08 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-30 >>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>> >>> Summary: THis document is ready for publication as a Proposed >>> Standard >>> >>> This reviewer found the document quite readable and clear >>> about what it was doing (with one minor issue noted >>> below.) The reviewer does not have the background to >>> evaluate whether the technical substance is correct or >>> incorrect, and leaves that to the community review. The >>> document is quite persuasive. >>> >>> Major issues: N/A >> Thanks for what was obviously a careful reading. >>> Minor issues: >>> I would like to see a little more explicit text in section >>> 3.2. It was not until I reached the IANA considerations >>> (section 8) that I realized that section 3.2 intended to >>> mandate that the IESG create and where applicable use a >>> broad review team for the new code point review. I think a >>> sentence or so along the lines of "Creation of this team >>> when needed is a new responsibility placed on the IESG by >>> this document." would have helped. >> While I don't think that text (or something like it) would be >> harmful and will happily include it in the I-D if Barry and the >> IESG think it would help, you have, from my standpoint, >> uncovered the elephant in the room. It may be a mean-tempered >> elephant. >> The difficulty with i18n work is that it requires people to work >> together to combine the perspectives of multiple specialties. >> Of course, the same could be said for routing or security, but >> most of the relevant specialties are part of, or align well >> with, expertise that are moderately common in, or that seem to >> fit well with, the IETF. With i18n, many are not and they >> rarely appear, all together, in on person. So competent review >> of just about anything in internationalization in the IETF >> requires a team. The IESG has known that since 2003 or earlier >> and took on the responsibility then. When we've appointed a >> single Designated Expert, it has almost always been someone who >> is expected to reach out to others, collect opinions, and then >> synthesize a result (again, really not so different from many >> other topic areas). So, really, this I-D is not changing much >> of anything in terms of what was expected, it is just being a >> tad more explicit about it. >> In addition, I predict that it will be fairly rare for the IESG >> to have sufficient internal expertise and contacts to recruit >> and select an entire team with the right mix of skills. >> Remember that, because some of the skills are uncommon in the >> IETF, a note to the IETF list or former WG lists asking for >> volunteers may not be productive. Certainly IESGs with the full >> range of needed knowledge have not been common in the last >> decade or so. So I'd predict that a sensible IESG would pick >> one or two people, ask them to recruit a team, and then bring >> the list of team members back to the IESG for a sanity check. >> It is probably not a coincidence that almost that model was used >> by the ART ADs to set up the i18n Directorate, nor, if the >> Directorate continues, would it surprise me if "the team" turned >> out to be the Directorate or a selected subset of it. >> If we are going to make the language more precise as you >> suggest, we need to do it so as to not constrain the IESG's >> ability to pick any of those options that makes sense in a given >> year. > > While one can argue that the meaning you want is implicit in the current > text, I do not think most readers will get it. And thus and IESG without > your context might easily not get it either. Would the following three > sentences work? > This document makes more explicit the IESG responsibility to ensure > a proper review team for the new code point review. As that team > needs a broad range of skills, the IESG may use a range of > strategies to populate the team. In particular, the IESG may > select an individual to do the work of proposing a sufficiently > broad team for the review, and then empower that team. > >> best, >> john >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: N/A >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
