Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050818021410.03153d70@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:30:04 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	Martin Duerst <duerst@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: <002101c5a368$fa2e6d00$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050817004910.031432e0@pop.online.fr>
	<037401c5a2bc$feae14e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050817134148.031935b0@mail.afrac.org>
	<002101c5a368$fa2e6d00$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

On 22:18 17/08/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>Hi Jefsey -
>Martin and I have decided that I'll be the shepherding AD for the two
>registry-related documents, while Martin handles the parallel work on
>completing the matching draft.  I'll be sending in the publication requests
>today.
>
>As the document's shepherd, I'm in no position to make "compromises".

Dear Randy,
Until this decision you had it.

>My job is to ensure that the document makes it through the process.

Your job is that the Internet standard process rules, the Charter and the 
users needs are respected.
Now, it is to IESG, IAB and Users to decide.

>If issues arise from the IESG or from the IETF last call, any changes 
>other than purely editorial ones will need to be approved by the working 
>group. (There's a reason for the "DISCUSS" nomenclature.)

Certainly.

>I respectfully decline your kind offer to help produce the summary of 
>potential appeals issues for the AD.

Noted.
jfc

 > From: "r&d afrac" <rd@afrac.org>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; 
> <duerst@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>; "Scott Hollenbeck" <sah@428cobrajet.net>
> > Cc: <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: appeal intent report to ADs
> >
> > 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-shephe 
> rding-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


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru