On 13:24 24/08/2005, Scott Hollenbeck said:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
> Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:03 AM
> To: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
>
> I would like to understand why
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt
> claims to be a BCP: it introduces a standard track proposition,
> conflicting with current practices and development projects under way?
>
> I support it as a transition standard track RFC needed by some, as
> long as it does not exclude more specific/advanced language
> identification formats, processes or future IANA or ISO 11179
> conformant registries. In order to avoid conflicts, its ABNF should
> be completed in dedicating a singleton to the general tag
> URI
>
(<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kindberg-tag-uri-07.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kindberg-tag-uri-07.txt
> accepted RFC).
Jefsey,
First, let's agree that you've asked this question [1], made this suggestion
[2], and engaged in discussion of these topics on the LTRU working group
mailing list. I know you haven't been happy with the way the discussion
went, but these are not new topics. Agreed?
Dear Scot
This an IESG last call. The IESG solicited final comments on its
intent to take a decision on the document - not on the WG methods. I
am honored to be involved in an internal discussion to the IESG by
the AD in charge, but if the IESG has already set-up its mind, what
is the use of a Last Call period?
The considered Draft does not describe a practice. It is a standard
track proposition among many others, existing or possible, including
better ones (according to his author), in an area where expertise is scarce.
Why a BCP? Production of this document is a direct requirement of the group
charter: "This working group will address these issues by developing
two documents.
The first is a successor to RFC 3066." 3066 is BCP 47. The
introduction and list of changes included in the
document describe why and how it is obsoleting 3066.
A successor is not necessarily a replacement. This question marred
the two last previous Last Calls of this proposition. Time has come
to address this in deprecating RFC 3066/BCP 47 and in considering
this Draft as what it is: a standard track RFC.
The ABNF suggestion has been discussed, partially accepted, and partially
rejected by the working group. If you have new information to describe why
you think the working group decision was a mistake, please describe it.
The IESG is to determine is if there is a consensus or not about the
Draft. It is not new the sun is not blue. It is not new that
commercial interests are in conflict with open sources. There are on
this list - and this is the purpose of a LC - all the IETF
competences to evaluate if the partial acceptance of my suggestions
went far enough or not.
A technical conflict remains a conflict. One may dislike it, but one
has to address it. We have two contradicting propositions, one
accepted as an RFC, one here under discussion. Both use W3C needs as
a motive, but both authors claim (one by disclaimer in his text, the
other in the WG debate) they do not represent the W3C positions. May
be a LC is the proper time, and this list the best place, for W3C to
tell us officially the tags, the private use tags or the other tag
formats they (also) want. And the same for all the other concerned SDOs.
All the best.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf