Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050512025656.03ec1030@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:10:43 +0200
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: jamais deux sans trois ? (was RE: [Ltru] RFC 2277 -
	considerations)
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20050511192847.0675b880@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511034921.03850200@mail.jefsey.com>
	<6.0.0.20.2.20050511192847.0675b880@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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

Hi! Martin,

At 12:39 11/05/2005, Martin Duerst wrote:
>At 11:53 05/05/11, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>
> >1. this is what what _I_ would like add/remove/replace that Randy asked.
>
>Randy asked for *specific* text. This is how the IETF works:
>If oppinions are too far apart, or unclear (or both), specific
>text always helps. I don't remember having seen a single line
>of specific text from you, but if I missed something, please
>tell me.

I responded to that many time. No problem anwering again. I have no text to 
offer to enhance a text I oppose where it is and I support in part at 
another place. For the other part I have no text to offer before the debate 
to fully substantiate it has not been engaged.

The way this WG has organised its debate is IMHO in the other way we 
needed. I submit that the present Draft includes the second document. And, 
as expressed since December, I do not support the solutions it proposes 
because I find them conflicting, but I do not consider myself interested 
and competent enough in W3C issues to be sure I am right. So I trust 
Addison. If he wants it, let him get it.

I understand that he needs it urgently. So I observe that in trying to fix 
the world to fix his own problem Mark and him are embracing a too large 
issue and only delay their document. Now, when they have completed their 
text, I am ready - but I am sure they would do it better - to remove from 
it all what does not belong to a second document and to propose a Draft to 
be completed by the filtering elements they had before, they also will be 
able to better document and refine than me. I underline that this is what I 
proposed to do with them the very first day we started this WG. Had we gone 
that way I am quite sure we would be all through as per the schedule.

IRT the first document, it is to address the main points of the Charter. As 
I explained it is of no use to propose a Draft before the WG reviewed he 
Charter. Expecting that we would start with a normal methodology, first 
considering what we had to do instead of starting with what we had failed, 
I planned to produce a Draft by mid-April. I will produce a Draft one 
month, or less if I can, after we have completed a serious review of the 
Charter. If this is after the closing of the WG too bad. I did not make the 
calendar.

Obviously I know what this Draft will include, I documented that several 
times (an Internet language identification framework, supporting them along 
the lines of RFC 3066, 2277, 2130, etc. and extending them along the lines 
of the Charter and of the Multilingual Internet requirement, to support the 
existing RFC referencing RFC 3066 and the Addison/Mark's Draft). But I have 
no reason to oppose and not to benefit from this WG.

I want to be sure this Draft is worded in the best way to obtain a general 
rough consensus. I also documented that I wanted this Draft to be approved 
by non IETF concerned parties,  to legitimate its options I consider as key 
elements of the Multilingual Internet - specifying lingual classes and most 
probably structuring the basic interelation with CRCs (I do not think the 
IANA can support the considered amount of traffic, and I do not consider 
that a centralized repository is adequate to the needs we need to address - 
which are far more complex than discussed in here). In this I know for 
certain I am in full agreement with the coming standards and international 
resolutions.

> >2. I certainly want to save time and stop a "consensus developped of the 
> remainder of the WG": this same residual reached the same "consensus" on 
> another list for the same proposition. Do you really want the same result?
>
>Please note that the IETF works with "rough consensus", which does not
>mean that everybody agreed completely. The problem with the "other list"
>was that it wasn't a WG,

This was a problem we all rose and we were glad that the IESG accepted to 
review a charter for it. I feel however extremely unatease, and I know I am 
not alone, because I see that this charter has not been considered, and 
that instead of a clean sheet review and of open fresh work on the charter, 
this WG started working on Draft-xxx.11.txt using it as its own reference.

>which means there were no chairs, and so nobody
>who could assess consensus in an official function.

May I underline that this Draft had been prepared by a list under the 
direct supervision of the IETF Chair by the Chair of an established 
organisation of which he is serious participant. That several other Members 
of this WG are members of this organisation. An organisation I do not 
disapprove since I joined it as a Member (however still not accepted on the 
CLDR list I was interested in). The quality and the serious of this Draft 
has never been questioned by anyone.

What is opposed is that this Draft wants to fix the internet to fix a 
specific (temporary/legacy) problem. Several explained the authors that 
they could produce an RFC referring to RFC 3066 without problem to fix 
their need, and then to share in an adaptation of BPC 47 to the new needs 
their fix would call for (a generic registration of ISO 10646, 3166 and 
15924 neither RFC 2277 nor 3066 oppose) but respecting the specifics of 
many other applications they refuse to consider.

>  The second problem
>was that some people complained that they didn't know this work was
>going on; this is quite different for the WG which has been widely
>announced.

I think I was the first one to rise this point. As it was by luck that I 
discovered that a Last Call had been called during the Xmas period. The 
current Draft does not correct this problem in the way it does not enhance 
the ietf-languages mailing list and governance.

>So it's very well possible that on some, or even many, issues, this
>WG reaches the same or a similar conclusion as a (by chance or by
>expertise and interest) similarly composed (but not chartered group)
>has reached before.

Certainly. But this is not the case. The only chance would be in this case 
that the same text, the same expertise (not considering me) and the same 
interests do not produce a similar conclusion.

This is why we need a fresh thinking or fresh blood. There is not much 
fresh blood at the IETF by lack of interest documented by the IAB's 
priorities. The reason why my position is at odds with most is that I want 
to maintain the Multilingual Internet documentation within the IETF as much 
as possible (in spite of the grassroots effort I documented a planned 
meeting) because I think this is a factor of stability for the whole system 
and probably the only way to avoid the balkanisation of the Internet.

This is why I bet on a fresh thinking ... still quite tough to uncover, but 
I am sure it will come. I am used to that for a long. The worst opponents 
usually become the most active innovators. And the innovation at hands is 
really interesting.

jfc





_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru