From: ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no [mailto:ietf-languages-
bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
Do what you feel is warranted, Bruce. You don't appear to be trying to
achieve consensus, which is the touchstone of the IETF process as I
understand it. If you feel issues should be taken to the IESG, then do so.
You have yourself noted that the draft is an individual
submission, not the result of an IETF process. "consensus"
doesn't apply to an individual effort. IF you want to
adhere to IETF process, by all means ask the IESG to set
up a working group, with a charter, a Chair, etc.; I
fully support that.
I don't understand why these kinds of comments are arising. To my understanding
(Harald can correct me if I'm wrong), the process that has been taken in
preparing the proposed revision of RFC 3066 is the same as what was done in
development of RFC 3066 as a replacement for RFC 1766. A general consensus was
achieved on the IETF-languages list in preparing the draft for "RFC1766bis",
and in exactly the same way a general consensus was achieved on this list in
the preparation of "RFC3066bis". Subsequent steps were taken with RFC 3066 for
it to be given BCP status, but that did not involve establishment of a working
group; I don't understand what should prevent the same thing happening in this
case.
Peter Constable
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf