Hi, Arnt,
I'm ok with most of your responses - just to follow up on a couple of places
where my comment may not have been well-explained...
Spencer
From: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Spencer Dawkins writes:
I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this
specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Is the following text
saying, "MAY return either "error" or "no-match" if the input strings are
not valid character strings ..."? The current text doesn't seem to say
what
happens when the input strings aren't valid and the equality function
doesn't return "error", which is only a MAY strength ("so don't be
surprised
when your server does this").
The equality function always returns "match" or "no-match" when
supplied valid input, and MAY return "error" if the input strings are
not valid character strings or violate other collation constraints.
I'll have to think about this some more.
The question is, should a collation be required to report "error" for
input outside its domain, or should it do whatever comes easiest?
I was thinking about this from the client's perspective (if the collation
doesn't report "error", how does the client know to report anything to
someone who might be able to fix the input?).
7.1. Collation Registration Procedure
Spencer: I'm not trying to change existing practice, but the IESG is
having
enough fun reviewing appeals these days that if the appeal track started
with the APPS area directors, I'm sure that the other ADs would be
thrilled.
:-(
I think I see what you're trying to say, but I'm feeling uncertain enough
that I'd appreciate some elaboration.
Did you perhaps read the following text as saying that the designated
expert needs to be an IESG member?
No, I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. I was trying to say that if the
designated expert fumbles the evaluation, perhaps talking to an APPS-area AD
would be sufficient to resolve most appeals, without involving the rest of
the IESG, unless the APPS-area AD fumbles the first-level appeal.
If this stuff is already being appealed directly to IESG without a one-AD
stop, I'm not trying to change anything. Scott, can you inject clue here?
The IETF will create a mailing list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], which can be
used for public discussion of collation proposals prior to
registration. Use of the mailing list is encouraged but not
required. The actual registration procedure will not begin until the
completed registration template is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The IESG
will appoint a designated expert who will monitor the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and review registrations forwarded
from IANA. The designated expert is expected to tell IANA and the
submitter of the registration within two weeks whether the
registration is approved, approved with minor changes, or rejected
with cause. When a registration is rejected with cause, it can be
re-submitted if the concerns listed in the cause are addressed.
Decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed to the IESG
and subsequently follow the normal appeals procedure for IESG
decisions.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
