From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips(_at_)webmethods(_dot_)com>
.... In fact we feel that we've been very considerate
and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging
community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no
matter the source.
Based on what I have seen in this mailing list, I disagree.
I would like the community at large to consider this specific
I-D--both the requirements for it and the technical merits of our
solution--attempt to understand our choices and provide (objective)
feedback that will allow us to achieve consensus for or against it
(or a slight revision thereof). We are trying to work within the
confines of the IETF's process to achieve what we see as the necessary
progress on this issue.
If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow the IETF's
processes, they would have taken one of the suggestions for the next
step and temporarily (or permanently) retired from the field. It is
clear that there is no consensus to advance this document. Even its
authors have admitted that by talking about a new version.
As has been said repeatedly, a new version would require a new Last
Call. Last Calls are on documents, not promises to produce a new
document that might address objections to the current document. Long
time spent in IETF processes is not a reason to ignore the clear answer
from the IETF processes of "No Consensus," even when the long time
actually is spent in the IETF processes. The IETF process involves
official IETF Working Groups and official IETF WG mailing lists. Time
spent in an unrelated mailing list is not part of IETF standards process
any more then the time spent by an Informational RFC author thinking
about things is part of the IETF standards process.
Besides, isn't the Last Call officially over? Isn't the topic of the
language tags BCP closed, dead, kaput, finished, and done until the
IESG and the individual submitters of the document choose the next step?
I can't see any significance for Mr. Phillips comment except as yet
more evidence that the default answer for individual submissions
must be "ABSOLUTE NO!" He is basically saying "You must publish our
BCP because we followed all of the steps as we understood them and the
default result of that is surely to publish."
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf