Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050807124103.05684090@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:44:14 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>,
	John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE06BBA085@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE06BBA085@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
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

Dear Doug and Peter,
as everyone knows for eight months now this debate lasts, I consider the 
proposition introduced by Addison and Mark, you sponsor, would lead to a 
terrible world cultural, societal and political catastrophe due its central 
positioning and to the technical inadequacy of its layer violations 
(confusing typography and network needs - and ignoring, refusing to 
consider [as for ISO 11179] or conflicting [as with Kindberg/Hawke RFC] 
with the work of other SDOs, international organisations and of thousands 
of local initiatives), the impact the scarcity of its options favoring the 
language industry dominant commercial interests, against competing and open 
source innovation I work on, or the dangers of supporting political 
discrimination it creates (and it documents in its security section).

As everyone also knows, I still believe that a consensus is possible. 
Because this is what IETF is about.

I will make therefore sure that all the Internet standard process 
possibilities (WG, Lasts Calls, appeals), legal procedures, international 
organisation political fora and conferences are properly respected and that 
procedures insuring their transparency are enabled. As the same time I lead 
R&D and share in Open Source work to technically address the real needs. 
The target is to unlock the exclusion introduced by this proposition, and 
simplify and open it until it permits the ultimate support of _every_ 
stakeholder without exclusive.

I do regret the bias your comments document: the longer it will take for 
you to accept the legitimacy of this effort and to cooperate in a true IETF 
spirit, the latter a final consensus will be possible.

I am sorry but these ad-hominems are not proper technical answers to:
- my question about the ABNF conflicts between the RFC ruling IETF generic 
tags and the Draft, which does not update accordingly the RFC 3066 ABNF 
(Charter: "[registry] likely to be updated by the document ")
- my request to the authors to propose us solutions, to address this 
questions since they refuse my propositions.

On 03:58 07/08/2005, John Cowan said:
>r&d afrac scripsit:
>
> > I only long for clear, stable, efficient, scalable IETF tags we all can 
> use in
> > peace. This is a legitimate demand I will repeat again and again until I
> > get them: this is what the IETF is about.
>
>This is a clear statement of the author's intent to spam this mailing
>list and other IETF mailing lists until he gets his way.  It should be
>obvious to all that this will never happen.

To call "spam" the normal usage of the Internet standard process towards an 
equal IETF success, says a lot of the work unfortunately remaining to 
accomplish before we can reach a rough consensus.

I regret that you consider this WG will never share in a clear, stable, 
efficient, scalable IETF tags. I would not share in it if I did not believe 
it will.

>Since there is at least a good possibility that this WG will continue
>for some time, through the matching draft, RFC 3066ter (ISO 639-3), and
>perhaps even quater (ISO 639-6), I see no reason at all why we should
>continue to put up with this treatment.

I note that this "treatment" is the normal respect of the Internet standard 
process ... I am not sure this is a correct manner to qualify it. May I 
suggest that instead you bring technical answers to technical questions. At 
least we agree that your current technical positions may make this WG to 
last a long time.

>I call for an immediate warning under BCP 94, to be followed by suspension
>under BCP 94 and if necessary under BCP 83 as well.

This is a good documentation of the exclusion spirit of the proposition.

At 05:15 07/08/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
I agree. I came back from a week's vacation to find a barrage of mail to
>this list, 40% of which involved this one person's attempt, once again,
>to get his way on proposals everyone that had previously been rejected.
>This is not collaborative contribution; this is obstruction of progress.

This unfortunately only documents a lack of interest in the WG Last Call, 
the very limited number of contributors and support. This is a real problem 
since a WG LC is to prepare the EISG LC. Excluding the only one interested 
in finding a common consensus will then not help.





    


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru