Subject: [I18ndir] draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-06

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:49:57 -0400

Hi.

In the hope of not having this go on much longer, I just posted
draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-06.  I think it contains responses
to all of the comments from the IESG evaluation
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis/ballot/
)
that were not misunderstandings already resolved with the
authors in offlist email. 

Several of the IESG ballot statements showed, IMO, considerable
ignorance of the IDNA documents, general i18n issues, etc.
Where feasible, I've dealt with those issues without being
obnoxious about it but attacks on statements in documents they
don't understand (and apparently haven't bothered to read or
otherwise make an effort to understand) is not my favorite
behavior by ADs in IESG review. Trying to figure out how to be
polite about such comments is one of the reasons it has taken
the better part of ten months for me to get this posted [1].
The other is the general state of the directorate and waiting
for specific advice and instructions from Pete and Barry about
this document and a set of notes that go through the IESG ballot
and comment/evaluate one remark at a time.

Please, everyone (and especially Asmus) check this and be sure
that I have not made any substantive changes.   

I hope and assume that Barry won't pass this back to the IESG
for action until there has either been an adequate review on
this list or he decides it won't be forthcoming.

    best,
      john

[1] I have inserted, and then deleted, several versions of
acknowledgements to a few IESG members indicating that without
their ignorant, and possibly personally vindictive, efforts,
this document might have been published months ago.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jul 2020 17:41:58 -0400

>that I have not made any substantive changes.   

I read it fairly carefully and it looks OK.  Next I should look at tne -05
to -06 diff to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Changing "for profit" to "primarily for financial benefit" was
annoying but it's more accurate since PIR is definitely in the latter
category.

R's,
John

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 18:35:21 -0400

--On Monday, July 13, 2020 17:41 -0400 John Levine
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I read it fairly carefully and it looks OK.  Next I should
> look at tne -05 to -06 diff to make sure I didn't miss
> anything.
> 
> annoying but it's more accurate since PIR is definitely in the
> latter category.

If you looked at the IESG comments, you saw that "for profit"
really set one or two people off.  I/we struggled a bit to find
reasonable replacement phrasing.  Whether that will be good
enough remains to be seen.

Thanks very much for the careful reading.

    john