Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050817134148.031935b0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:29:08 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	duerst@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp,
	"Scott Hollenbeck" <sah@428cobrajet.net>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: appeal intent report to ADs
In-Reply-To: <037401c5a2bc$feae14e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050817004910.031432e0@pop.online.fr>
	<037401c5a2bc$feae14e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 01:48 17/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>If you're planning to appeal an IESG decision, this WG isn't the
>place to do it.  Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026 makes the IAB responsible
>for handling such appeals.

Dear Randy,
I do not understand your answers since you quote the proper references.

1. RFC 2026 6.5 describes the appeal procedures. This mail is an attempt to 
help you start an effort towards a compromise you did not engage.

>The report Martin and I are required to provide

2. The document you quote says that this report is by the Shepherding 
Chair. I will wait for his designation.

>to our responsible AD
>is in anticipation of likely appeals of working group decisions, per 
>section 6.5.1 of RFC 2026 and section 3.1 (1.f) of
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt

3. This document says: "1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise 
indicated extreme discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of 
conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director."

In the case you missed it, I fall in the category of this anyone. I suppose 
that an incorrect description of my positions will only delay the whole 
process and lower the WG credibility. This is why I proposed to help. I 
note that you refused that help.

>I do suggest you take a look at section 5 of RFC 2026, as your
>understanding of the significance of the "BCP" designation doesn't
>appear to be supported by its definition there.

A BCP can be:
1. good user service common guidelines for policies and operations 
different in scope and style from protocol standards.
2. a way for entities such as IAB/IESG to insert proposals into the 
consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the community's view 
of that issue.
3. to document the operation of the IETF itself.  For example, this 
document defines the IETF Standards Process and is published as a BCP.

(1) seems unlikely since the Draft introduces standard track issues 
conflicting with open source/standard works and projects.
(2) I thought it was a way for W3C and Unicode to introduce their 
proposals, but Addison Philip documented he did not represent the W3C (Mark 
Davis refused to comment and to inform the WG on the CLDR he directs and 
which is included in the Charter).
(3) the title of the WG is "Language Tags Registry Update". The non-studied 
Charter says "It will describe the structure of the IANA registry and how 
the registered tags will relate to the generative mechanisms".

I take that this intended BCP is to ascertain the control of this IANA 
registry to the benefit of the "ietf-languages@alvestrand.no" mailing list 
and through an excluding format, leading the users of other formats more 
appropriate to their needs to adopt non-IANA/IETF solutions, increasing the 
balkanisation of the Internet.

I formally oppose this excluding proposition I consider as highly 
detrimental to the Internet. And will continue to engage every effort I can 
pursue to fight the internet balkanisation as a response to its partition 
necessity, all the more when I feel the motivation is not a common but a 
commercial interest for the very reasons documented by IAB in RFC 3869.

jfc morfin

> > From: "r&d afrac" <rd@afrac.org>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> > Cc: "Scott Hollenbeck" <sah@428cobrajet.net>; <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:11 PM
> > Subject: appeal intent report to ADs
> >
> > Dear Randy,
> > you have adopted a procedure which makes you (or Martin) to report the ADs
> > the documented motives of the appeals I announced, should the IETF Last
> > Call lead to a positive IESG decision, regarding the Draft you made
> > proposed by Addison Philips and Mark Davis. I am certainly ready to help
> > reviewing this report, so the AD get a complete and clear picture. This may
> > be an occasion for clarifications, and to agree on our disagreements.
> >
> > I think that this Draft would deeply harm the Internet should it continue
> > to claim being a BCP documenting an exclusive global Internet language
> > tagging. But I also think that if this Draft brings a transitional response
> > to specific needs, it must go through as a standard track specific document
> > (having not studied the Charter in common, I trusted blindly Addison on
> > this until he said he did not spoke on behalf the W3C: this is the reason
> > of my "if"). In such a case both the Internet standard process and the
> > anti-open standard ABNF provisions parts should obviously be removed as out
> > of the new scope.
> >
> > jfc
> >
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru