Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050410010816.03ca8740@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:18:14 +0200
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Question about some draft text.
In-Reply-To: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0AFA3A94@irvmbxw01.quest.c
 om>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0AFA3A94@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ltru Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 23:24 09/04/2005, Addison Phillips said:
>See inline.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org=
] On
> > Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
> > On 09:02 09/04/2005, Mark Davis said:
> > >I agree.
> > >=E2EURZMark
> > I agree on the modification.
> >
> > I disagree on:
> >
> > - the decision by the reviewer to accept. It should be "to refuse",
> > decision being "yes" by default. Otherwise we may have CIOs, we have =
a
>[Addison Phillips]
>
>The reviewer makes a statement about whether consensus has or has not be=
en=20
>reached. Lack of consensus is "no". The reviewer does NOT decide about t=
he=20
>registration personally, they only make the judgment call on group conse=
nsus.*

I fully understand that. I say that lack of consensus should be "yes".
If something is dumb stupid there will be a consensus against it.
If something is controverted there will be no consensus for it. The targe=
t=20
is not to have a non disputed list. The target is to permit people to use=
=20
the list.

>There are many registered tags today that the current reviewer did not=20
>personally agree with.

When there was a consensus _against_ Michael's opinion? I believe you but=
 I=20
would be glad to know one, just about a script for example.

> > complex non documented procedure of relations with ISO (and only the =
ISO
> > case is quoted), we have no formal complete denial documentation to a=
ppeal
> > (a new request may result in a new refusal). 15 days are enough for
> > experts
> > to say "this is inconsistent" or "should be reworded" and to document=
 it
> > to
> > the reviewer, and then for the reviewer to document her decision (sam=
e
> > work) - could be 15 extra days to issue a statement. Less hassel and
> > maximum delays instead of minimum delays.
> >
> > - the extra wheight given to the initial registrant. For many practic=
al
> > reasons. First the initial registrant can be dead, what puts some
> > languages
>[Addison Phillips]
>Read my text carefully. It says:
> > > > normally objections by the original registrant will
> > > > carry extra weight in forming such a consensus.</t>
>
>Which is different than what RFC 3066 says. RFC 3066 actually gave extra=
=20
>weight to the original registrant by rule. My text says that their voice=
=20
>will probably be influential. There is a world of difference in that.

I noted it. But, this still gives exta weight where there should be none.

> > in a different positions. Then it gives the registrant some kind of r=
igt
> > on
> > a language what is not acceptable. But mostly it implies that the
> > registration may be not clear enough to everyone to need an additiona=
l
> > comment. This is a standardization process, the name and the organiza=
tion
> > of the initial proponent should be forgotten.
> >
> >    - no single one can "register" a language of many, we should use t=
he
> > term "proponent"
>[Addison Phillips]
>
>I disagree.

Your priviledge. As is mine to disagree to your disagreement.

> >    - the registration should not be deemed to be made by the proponen=
t but
> > by the ietf-languages@iana.org list.
>[Addison Phillips]
>
>The registration is not "made by" the registrant. But we track who=20
>requested it.

What for? What counts in a network is not the way the network was built b=
ut=20
the way its users believe it should be used. Basic law.

> >    - the registered data should be all what is ever needed.
>[Addison Phillips]
>
>No kidding? Is there something we are not requesting that should be?
>The registered data fills in the registry entry. Of course, others may=20
>register additional comments, prefixes, etc. etc. in the record over tim=
e.

I mean that the all what is ever needed in an entry is what is entered.=20
Additional comments, prefixes, etc. etc. should never be subject to=20
something which was not previously entered. Comments by who ever proposed=
=20
or commented before are not to be considered. If they should, they should=
=20
have been entered.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru