ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ietf-822 Non-sub: Re (fwd)

2003-02-07 14:25:34

thanks for resending this.

However I strongly disagree about the use of process.   IESG should not
accept WG output that doesn't meet the quality required for
standardization (which includes breaking things). 

Furthermore, rechartering of WGs is fully and appropriately within
IESG's power -- particularly when such WGs produce poor-quality output
and/or don't meet their deadlines for deliverables.

I wish they'd push back on such WGs a tad more often.

The burden on those who want to see raw utf-8 in message headers is to
convincingly demonstrate how to make it work well, without breaking the
installed base.

Keith

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Benjamin Franz <snowhare(_at_)nihongo(_dot_)org> wrote:


This is being resent for the IETF-822 wg's benefit because the
original was only 'half-delivered' due to that list blocking initial
mails by non-subscribers (didn't usefor get chewed out by the IETF for
doing that a couple of years ago?). My apologies to those on usefor
who have already seen it

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:06:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare(_at_)nihongo(_dot_)org>
To: usenet-format(_at_)landfield(_dot_)com
cc: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, <news(_at_)dankohn(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-kohn-news-article-00.txt
In-Reply-To:
<138AA78F80DCE84B8EE424399FFBF9C904FA85(_at_)exchange(_dot_)ad(_dot_)skymv(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)44(_dot_)0302061158450(_dot_)7069-100000(_at_)high-mountain(_dot_)nihongo(_dot_)org>
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Dan Kohn wrote:

 This will require 7-bit encoding of i18n characters, likely using
 RFC 2047/2231 and/or nameprep+punycode (as with IDNA).  The general
 approach will be the one laid out in
 <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kohn-news-article-00.tx
 t>.

Stop.

Really.

It is simply an attempt to hijack a working group via manipulation of
IETF procedure. It would set a precedent that *everyone* in the IETF
would live to regret.

"Don't like what someone's working group is producing? Recharter them
to force the decisions you want in the charter! Fun and games for the
whole family!"

--
Benjamin Franz

"Hey! I have an idea! Let's recharter IETF-822 to require binary
transparent operation!"


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>