Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050730160819.03991960@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:07:45 +0200
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>,
	"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #1072] compatibility and private use tags
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20050730160735.0a619450@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050719231610.05809220@pop.online.fr>
	<6.0.0.20.2.20050720180904.07e45b10@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050722112811.05c9d780@mail.afrac.org>
	<006901c5927e$9d0aea40$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.0.0.20.2.20050730160735.0a619450@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 09:12 30/07/2005, Martin Duerst wrote:
>At 16:41 05/07/27, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> >Hi -
> >Has anyone been persuaded by Jefsey's arguments that we need to
> >re-open the discussion of private-use (sub)tag syntax and compatibility?
> >Unless there is support for re-examining this decision, I believe it is
> >in the best interest of timely completion of our work to leave this 
> issue closed.
>
>[chair hat off]
>I very much agree with others that this issue can and should be left
>closed. If anything, it has only become even clearer than before in the
>most recent discussion than before that the WG's current rough consensus
>on this issue is the best way to move forward, and that JFC hasn't
>brought up a substantial issue.
>
>Any of my other emails on this issue should be taken in light of the
>comment above: To make things even clearer for those that may still
>need additional clarification (including external people reading these
>archives later).

To these people,
please note that this is a private subjective (*) position of a co-Chair on 
a fundamental point he is to rule about, deciding if there is an existing 
rough consensus or not. In Justice this would obviously cancel his further 
decisions. All the more than he underlines that "_any_ [chair hat on and 
off] of my other emails on this issue should be taken in light of the 
[pivate - chair hat off] comment above". The bias becomes obvious when this 
response is precisely a response to ... the other co-Chair asking if this 
issue should be closed, what he will have to ... co-decide himself!

(*) the subjective nature of the position and its oddity is demonstrated by 
the fact that this mails follows by 12 minutes another mail where he carry 
with me, and on this specific matter, and with arguments the reader will 
appreciate the value but which are not final, one of the discussions "which 
brings no substantial value", and he says he wants to see closed ....

I will obviously not appeal for this example, among so many others, of the 
way this WG openly proceeds towards a consensus by exhaustion. I note that 
the preceding mail, documented a case of "exclusensus" against my positions.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru