Subject: [I18nrp] Appropriate status for draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:18:02 -0800

In a recent message, John Klensin said:

> Because (if nothing else) the document follows up on RFC 6452, which was
Standards Track, and because the directorate should have a chance to come
together and review this document and its relationship to other pending
work, the Last Call has now been cancelled (or, I hope more accurately,
deferred).

I agree that RFC 6452 was Standards Track, but I disagree that this implies
this document must be.

RFC 5892 has the following statement in its IANA considerations:

   If non-backward-compatible changes or other problems arise during the
creation or designated expert review of the table of derived property
values, they should be flagged for the IESG.  Changes to the rules  (as
specified in Sections 2 and 3), including BackwardCompatible (Section 2.7)
(a set that is at release of this document is empty) require IETF Review,
as described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].

While there are not changes to the rule RFC 6452 has at least one character
that might be read to warrant broader IETF review:

1.3.  U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE

   The GeneralCategory for this character changes from Nd to No.  This
implies that the derived property value changes from PVALID to DISALLOWED.

This does not occur in this document, nor do any of the conditions that
require more than a notification off the issue to the IESG.  Patrik has
chosen to solicit advice from the community by publishing this thoughts on
this, to confirm that there are no issues that he missed.  But ultimately
the result of that is an informational document on the expert's opinion
after the review he solicited as expert.

We have clear ways to require the publication of RFCs or of requiring
standards before making changes, and those are not required in this case.
If you desire to make them required, I believe you must write a document
that proposes that change, and then seek consensus for it.

I agree with you, however, that the oddity of having one informational and
one standards track might be worth remedying.  The simplest way to do that,
though, would be to mark 6452 as historic.  I am happy to write a short
draft to that end, if you agree.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: "Patrik Fältström" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 09:03:48 +0100

On 4 Dec 2018, at 22:18, Ted Hardie wrote:

> The simplest way to do that, though, would be to mark 6452 as historic.

I disagree. I think it is important to have it recorded that IETF for Unicode version 6.0 decided to explicitly follow the Unicode Standard. Just like this draft of mine when becoming an RFC says the same to Unicode 11.0.0.

These two could be historic together with a complete new document replacing not only these two but also for example 5892.

To conclude: after following the discussions my view is that even if this draft suggest not to update 5892, it could have done so, and because of that this draft of mine IS an update to 5892. Just like 6452 is.

But of course I will as an author follow whatever the outcome of this discussion will be.

   Patrik

---

From: Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:10:45 -0800

>> The simplest way to do that, though, would be to mark 6452 as historic.

This appears to be part of a comment that I did not receive.

> To conclude: after following the discussions my view is that even if this draft suggest not to update 5892, it could have done so, and because of that this draft of mine IS an update to 5892. Just…

I'm not sure I follow that logic. Concluding that there is no need to 
modify RFC 5892 is different from modifying it.

I also have qualms about your shorthand expression "follow the Unicode 
standard". What you are really saying is that you have reached the 
conclusion that if "IETF follows the process laid down in RFC 5892 for 
applying Unicode properties the result includes no instances that 
warrant an explicit exception".

That phrasing has a subtly different emphasis, that I think is worth 
retaining.

A./

> _______________________________________________
> i18nRP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:23:54 -0800

Howdy,

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:03 AM Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I disagree. I think it is important to have it recorded that IETF for
> Unicode version 6.0 decided to explicitly follow the Unicode Standard. Just
> like this draft of mine when becoming an RFC says the same to Unicode
> 11.0.0.
>
> These two could be historic together with a complete new document
> replacing not only these two but also for example 5892.
>
> To conclude: after following the discussions my view is that even if this
> draft suggest not to update 5892, it could have done so, and because of
> that this draft of mine IS an update to 5892. Just like 6452 is.
>
> So, RFC 6452 says in section 2:

"No change to RFC 5892 is needed based on the changes made in
   Unicode 6.0."

Your draft comes to the substantially the same conclusion in  directing
IANA to update the tables to Unicode 11.  Given that, I don't see it
updates 5892.  It comments on it, and so it needs a reference, but it isn't
an update in my view.

This is also why i think Informational is the right status for documents
like these; if there is no change needed, the process can run without
requiring standards action.  That's clearly what the original IANA
considerations said, and I think that's right now.

I realize it is tedious to argue over this, but we're going to need a new
review by March at the latest, and I see no sign that these reviews will be
completely gone any time soon.

regards,

Ted