Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050629174141.04370eb0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:47:56 +0200
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Submission: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-07
In-Reply-To: <02b201c57cbf$39d67180$666e3009@sanjose.ibm.com>
References: <OFE6340F15.8832D024-ON8825702E.00691482-8825702E.006A1D06@spe.sony.com>
	<6.0.0.20.2.20050629090236.06d7fd60@localhost>
	<02b201c57cbf$39d67180$666e3009@sanjose.ibm.com>
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 17:28 29/06/2005, Mark Davis said:
>With any document, it is always possible to have incremental improvements.
>But we will never finish at that rate. It is now the 60th of May, so if we
>are going to finish by the end of May as planned, we have to wrap things up,
>instead of having continual tweaks.

Mark,
let be realistic. What Martin proposes has my agreement and I am quite sure 
the agreement of those I team with (I sent a mail, we have the EGENI 
meeting tomorrow and the Luxembourg meetings the week after - so we can 
concert f2f [I will have to make some convincing, but I feel confident]). 
So the options are:

- either we work seriously on this and you have a final text (which will 
not be changed, only commented) within one month, which will seamlessly go 
through the LCs (unless there is real disagreement over the description of 
the motives of this WG, but I suppose that you guys know why you want what 
you want?) This will be obtained at least effort for all (we _really_ have 
other things than to protect our work and users from you). If the wording 
is clear I have no objection that Peter uses it for ISO.

- or we do not. I suppose that we will list at least 70 points to be 
discussed for the WGLC. The same at the IESG LC. This will most probably 
give us the time to work and develop, test and document (running code and 
on-line applications, plus report of Varsaw) why your approach is out of 
scope for the Internet and cannot scale (I say Internet, not W3C). My 
guesstimate is that we have no problem showing there is no consensus in the 
coming two LCs, building a consensus against your Draft within the next 
three to six months and for our common work within one year. At IETF or 
WSIS. The IDN WG has lasted three years. It was just on domain names.

IMHO the work is simple. It simply consists for us in reviewing the 
document to list not what we oppose, but where we need a clarification of 
the reasons why. The text should most probably result from the past 
exchanges of the list. These are its "whereas".

Don't you think we have other things to do in life than to fight one another?
I am not paid for all this, I am ethically/technically right, I am 
supported by many and if grow too old there are several better than me to 
replace me ...
No one owns the IETF.
your choice.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru