At 13:08 26/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
just a remark here. In the RFC 3066bis Last Call case the IETF has
the capacity not only to "police" but to "impose" and "force". This
is the case when a memo documents a IANA registry. In the case of a
standard track memo, there can be an appeal before it is imposed.
It seems not in the case of a BCP.
Wrong. IESG approvals of a standards track draft or of a BCP are equally
subject to appeal within two months.
Dear Brian,
I do not say that BCP are not subject to appeal, but that in the case
of a standard track an appeal delays the enforcement and that in the
case of BCP it does not. My sources are quoted below.
Entries have been made _months_ago_ on East Asian languages in the
_current_ registry in using the Draft registry format, however
initially opposed by the reviewer. Should the Draft be accepted, the
registry update will be requested immediately and products will ship
on the faith of the accepted drafts. This will impose the Draft
through usage, rising objections to a "change" resulting from an appeal.
If you warranty that this is not the case and that this Draft can
only be result in a reload of the IANA registry after the appeals
(IESG and possibly IAB) are exhausted, this will help everyone
getting more serene as the complexity of the issue calls for. This
will permit more Members of the IETF community to become familiar
with the architectural aspects at stake, and to people from the
cultural world and from more languages to assess the involved issues.
My "Draft as a default, not as an exclusive" proposition gives that
time, but over the years to come and without delaying the deployment.
Should it be refused, appeals would block the implementation for a
few months. This would be the only delay left to avoid balkanisation
and an e-cultural world war. Experience from French/European cultural
exception policy, European response to Google scannerisation project,
Chinese Names, UNESCO positions and funding for a multilingual
Cyberspace, NICSO equal linguistic opportunity declaration, MINC
positions, Eurolinc's Louis Pouzin WSIS contributions, WGIG
multilingual priorities, etc. show that - even if most of the IETF
Members are unaware - this technical, political and societal issue,
is not only commercial.
jfc
At 18:50 24/08/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 24. august 2005 12:19 -0400 "John.Cowan"
<jcowan(_at_)reutershealth(_dot_)com> wrote:
A process question: does a BCP go into effect when it is passed for
publication as an RFC, or when it is actually published as an RFC,
months or years later?
When it is passed (see tradition with BCP 101). Setting up the
administrative details to actually act like the BCP says can take a
little time, of course.
Harald
At 20:20 24/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
> On average four months, not years. For an RfC the "effect"
> (as far as IANA is concerned) is apparently very fast, one
> experimental RfC approved less than two months ago with two
> IANA "effects" is ready for at least three weeks now, IIRC.
...
Before a document is even approved for hand-off to the RFC editor,
IANA will take a look at in in conjunction with the IESG review. In my
experience, they go through the IANA considerations sections *very*
carefully, and are not shy about asking questions or requesting clarification.
Consequently, by the time the RFC appears, IANA has already known
for some time what would need to be done to implement a registry,
so it should not come as a surprise that they are able to activate them
quickly.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf