Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050510222929.038377d0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:13:02 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations
In-Reply-To: <007d01c558ae$1cb4ec60$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508032918.039af710@mail.jefsey.com>
	<6.0.0.20.2.20050508154021.06275280@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>
	<01LO1QSCZ7S800004T@mauve.mrochek.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050509181241.048ab7f0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<002a01c55815$27558240$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050510022435.041290c0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<001001c55829$830b81c0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050510123012.04620b40@mail.jefsey.com>
	<007d01c558ae$1cb4ec60$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
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 19:55 14/05/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>Rather than addressing the numerous points and assertions
>individually, I'd like to get a hum from the working group:
>
>Should we adopt the general course of action outlined below by
>Jefsey?  I'm not looking for point-by-point responses at this time,
>just a succinct "yes, let's adopt the general approach Jefsey
>proposed," "no, let's not go down that path," or  "I'd like to hear
>more discussion of his proposal before deciding."

Dear Randy,
I am not sure which of the three courses of action I list you allude to. 
Let me quote them so the ones who said they "oppose" may not look a fool of 
opposing again what they support:

1. to follow the charter, understanding what it means and studying 
seriously what it calls for, what will probably get more people involved 
for a better legitimacy of a resulting clean sheet draft, reviewing all the 
impacted RFCs.
2. to follow the Last Call advise: to fix the XML problem without wanting 
to fix the Internet (replacing BCP 47) against RFC 2301.
3. to continue as per today and to address, during the general Last Call, 
all what has not been sorted out within the WG. (you have currently entered 
only a very few of the 55 points of my Draft-11.txt review).

Obviously, if some oppose the three of them and have another one, I am more 
that interested.

I suppose the current mood being what it is, 3 will be favored, the last 
call will fail again on the grounds of 2, what will lead 1 to be the end 
result, next year or outside the IETF. This will be good for the Internet, 
but will represent a certain waste of efforts and time for all of 
us.  Obviously I will not complain to get a good result addressing the real 
world's needs, but could not some common sense and humility help us doing 
better and faster.

After all, this approach will have delayed the odd XML solution the W3C 
wants by two years (counting the last 2 failed Last Calls). What is too bad 
if they really want it (I do not use XML much) because 2 would have made an 
RFC of it by now.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru