At 11:35 01/09/2006, Brian Carpenter wrote:
So, in conclusion, the IESG seeks comments on whether there is
community interest in turning the first part of this experiment into a
BCP. The IESG also seeks comments from interested document editors
and working group chairs pointing to instances where the second part
of the experiment would be useful. In particular, please let the IESG
know about upcoming work where being able to reference approved
Internet Drafts from RFCs would be useful; please explain how it would
be useful. Unless the IESG finds significant cases where the second
part of this experiment will be useful, the IESG plans to decline to
run that part of the experiment.
you have recently documented a case where referencing current BCP 47
I-D instead of BCP 47 itself was a need. I oppose your idea to
consider that expediting their publication as RFC is a solution (and
I will therefore oppose your decision to expedite this publication
should my appeal be turned down on this point).
We exactly are in the case you decribed. I asked the IESG to expedite
that publication months ago. I was turned down. Unicode asks again
and you want consider it is an emergency case. This means that if an
IETF participant asks for something he is turned down, but if an non
IETF participant asks for the same thing IESG will rush to satisfy
the same request. This is prejudiciable juridprudence. In this case,
what is absurd is that you simultaneously publish a rechartering LC
review to obsolete the same documents by the same date: this shows
that this solution is probably not good in some cases.
You turned my appeal down on false grounds (and I forwarded it to the
IAB). What I oppose is the idea that expediting the publication of an
RFC under appeal is a possible solution to the need you describe.
1. It MUST not be.
2. another solution MUST be found.
John Klensin's proposition seems to be a realistic, acceptable one. Because:
- it does not register an RFC which would have to be obsoleted should
a few points have to be mended.
- in the process it does not influence the appeal under consideration.
- an appeal puts the focus on a document, and an expedited
publication looks like a special sponsoring of the IESG.
I think the IANA linguistic registries are an important issue and an
area of experimentation. There already are experimentations carried
by WG-LTRU members. They show the need to have some QA on the langtag
libraries. The RFC 3066 Bis format turns out to need further
constraints to be fool proof: this is reflected by experimentation.
Under appeal is the affirmation by a co-Chair that RFC 3066 Bis
langtag verification calls for too much load on the IANA to be used
in the matching process. Only practical testing can show if this is
true or not, if there are some alternatives or not. The Internet was
built on experimentation, not on commercial interests. This is
exactly the rationale of IAB's RFC 3869.
I am certainly willing to share a serious testing experimentation
protocol over the IETF langtag usage and interoperability.
Ietf mailing list