Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050708151450.040c9080@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:05:04 +0200
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>,
	IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <42CE45D6.20404@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <E1DqcNl-0001Hd-FK@newodin.ietf.org>
	<42CE45D6.20404@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: Re: When to DISCUSS?
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 11:22 08/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>As most RFC authors know, when an IESG member identifies a problem in
>a draft under IESG review, he or she casts a DISCUSS ballot, with
>accompanying text, and the DISCUSS has to be cleared before the
>document can advance.
>
>draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt talks about this. Even within the
>IESG, we still have one or two points to resolve, but we wanted to get
>this out before the cutoff date. This isn't in any way intended to change
>any of the principles of the standards process, but we'd welcome
>community comment.

I have a problem  It concerns the need of non IESG DISCUSS by concerned 
authoritative entities whose personal opposition may block the adhesion of 
the Internet community to the RFC. I will illustrate with the IANA aspects.

When a RFC calls for a IANA Registry management, the IANA under RFC 2860 
should comply with it. We however have a grey area which concerns the 
applications involving for example ISO 3166 (country codes), ISO 639 
(languages), ISO 11179 (Registires), etc. I name some which are in the 
current debate today. But it is likely that the convergence, the universal 
development of the Internet, etc. will lead to such situations where an 
IETF defined registry using external standards leads to correlations 
opposed by those who accepted the standard.

This problem is obviously a ransom of the Internet success, but it is a key 
problem for the Internet and IETF integration.

I have no specific solution here, but I say two things:

1. the joint committes and liaisons with other SDOs should have the 
possibility to rise a DISCUSS flag

2. the IANA should not be forced to accept the management of a Directory 
without the issue being agreed with all the concerned parties. The major 
evolution of the Internet we face is the distribution of the IANA functions 
(USA initiated a move I work on for four years). It is of the utmost 
importance that we avoid an "alt-root" situation here, all the more than 
the first partners will most probably include Governements and the next 
ones concerned cultures. It is therefore of the essence that the conference 
of the distributed National/Regional/Local/Corporate/Private Centers of 
References, whatever it may be built as, has the capacity to DISCUSS a 
Registry specified in an RFC and prevent its parameter polution by 
disagreeing Reference Centres Managers.

This is particularly true for the Registries where the ISO standards above 
are considered (ISO 3166 is the most widely used ISO table and is clearly 
identified in the Internet to ccTLDs for national communities and to GAC 
for Governments, ISO 639 series identifies languages, what means commonly 
cultures [English speaking people and young cultures use to attach more 
their culture to Nations, Religions, etc.]).

I know some will object that this is not the way the Internet is specified. 
Or that this is not the way it should work. Or this is L8/L9 concerns out 
of IETF/IESG scope. The same as some said and may be continue to say that 
for the root. This will not change that this is the way the root works 
today and this is the way the IANA starts being considered today.

Establishing rules taking reality into account, will only permit to smooth 
the transition from a mono-default to a multi-enacted parametered internet. 
The Internet partitionning (legacy, regalian, national, cultural, 
proximity, trade, kids, private, etc.) is a necessity: the USA just 
affirmed it for their own account; I identified and documented it here 
nearly two years ago. We have now to progressively acknowledge it and build 
the procedures and projects which will help making it a concerted 
compartmentalisation rather than to close our eyes on the wild 
balkanisation now engaged.

jfc





>    Brian
>
>Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>>directories.is draft is a work item of the Internet Engineering Steering 
>>Group Working Group of the IETF.
>>         Title           : DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review
>>         Author(s)       : J. Peterson, et al.
>>         Filename        : draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
>>         Pages           : 10
>>         Date            : 2005-7-7
>>
>>    This document describes the role of the 'DISCUSS' position in the
>>    IESG review process.  It gives some guidance on when a DISCUSS should
>>    and should not be issued.  It also discusses procedures for DISCUSS
>>    resolution.
>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf