Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
John's comment are partially based on misreading of the document. Various clarifications were done to the Introduction, so I believe this version addresses John's concerns.
- I found this in the shepherd write-up: "John Klensin's comments should be reviewed thoroughly since his conclusion is that the document should not be published in the IETF stream." Was this discussed? If there are actual concerns about the amount of review performed and limited attention to reach IETF consensus, maybe this document should go to the ISE instead? - I think the title could be extended e.g. Guidance on designing Label Generation Rulesets (LGR) supporting variant lables
Having somewhat followed the variants discussions in the IETF and ICANN, I have primarily learnt 2 things: 1: variants are subtle, complex, controversial and deeply political; and 2: John Klensin, Vint, Patrik and Andrew know way more about them than me, have thought deeply about both the problem space, and the political / long term implications; their opinion in this space should be respected. I have read the document, and, *as far as I understand it*, the technique / methodology in it seems reasonable and sane; however, the LC comments from John and Vint concern me, and I think that they really should be properly addressed - I'm hoping that there has been (possibly off-list) discussion regarding John's concerns? From my reading, the updates to the Introduction do not really address his issue. The response to the IETF LC was primarily John's (and some support of his position). Unless my search foo failed, I have not found much discussion on prior versions - this makes me concerned that this will be used to justify that variants are safe without much review or consensus from those schooled in the art. I do not feel technically qualified to be hold a DISCUSS on the document, and so I'm balloting ABSTAIN - *I* do not see support for advancing the document in the IETF, but understand that others may differ.