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" <arnt@xxxxxxxx>
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 arenot valid character strings ..."? The current text doesn't seem to say whathappens when the input strings aren't valid and the equality functiondoesn't return "error", which is only a MAY strength ("so don't be surprisedwhen 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 ProcedureSpencer: I'm not trying to change existing practice, but the IESG is havingenough fun reviewing appeals these days that if the appeal track startedwith 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, collation@xxxxxxxx, 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 iana@xxxxxxxxx The IESG will appoint a designated expert who will monitor the collation@xxxxxxxx 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 IESGdecisions.