Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050106015428.07935030@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:47:03 +0100
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, ietf-languages@iana.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <p06110405be019ac3eb2a@[195.218.107.84]>
References: <0469B304BE16955F822E4FA8@scan.jck.com>
	<PNEHIBAMBMLHDMJDDFLHGEDHJAAA.aphillips@webmethods.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050105025712.0e267460@mail.jefsey.com>
	<20050105121625.GD16300@skunk.reutershealth.com>
	<p06110405be019ac3eb2a@[195.218.107.84]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
	x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2A30128B
Cc: 
Subject: Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications, and
 extensions
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

At 14:29 05/01/2005, Michael Everson wrote:
>Dear colleagues,
>I can see that I have not been wrong deleting this thread unread. I don't 
>know what Mr Morfin's problem is, and John's responses suggest to me that 
>I oughtn't care. Please publish the new RFC soon so we can Get On With It. 
>Try to get it a number that ends in -66.

Dear Michael,
May be this one should be worth a second "Bulldog" prize :-)

You are fully entitled not to want to consider/ignore the needs and 
questions I expressed (a very elegant and efficient example of the 
"particular care" of this caucus as required by the Internet standard 
process [RFC 2026]).

But I am surprised you endorse such repeated "this":

>At 07:16 -0500 2005-01-05, John Cowan wrote:
>>The intent is that the draft become a BCP replacing RFC 3066 (also a 
>>BCP),not an Internet Standard.

while BCP009 "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3" says in 
"5.  BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs", says:

"The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to 
_standardize_ practices and the results of community deliberations.  A BCP 
document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as _standards_ 
track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF   community can 
define and ratify the community's best current thinking on a statement of 
principle or on what is believed to be the best way to perform some 
operations or IETF process function.

"Historically Internet _standards_ have generally been concerned with the 
technical specifications for hardware and software required for computer 
communication across interconnected networks.  However, since the Internet 
itself is composed of networks operated by a great variety of 
organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user service requires 
that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some common 
guidelines for policies and operations. while these guidelines are 
generally different in scope and style from protocol _standards_, their 
establishment needs a similar process for _consensus_ building.

"While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are composed 
of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the technical work 
of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities themselves have an 
existence as leaders in the community.  As leaders in the Internet 
technical community, these entities should have an outlet to propose ideas 
to stimulate work in a particular area, to raise the community's 
sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a statement of architectural 
principle, or to communicate their thoughts on other matters. The BCP 
subseries creates a smoothly structured way for these management entities 
to insert proposals into the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while 
gauging the community's view of that issue.

"The BCP process is similar to that for proposed _standards_.  The BCP is 
submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the existing 
review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF Announce mailing 
list.  However, once the IESG has approved the    document, the process 
ends and the document is published.  The resulting document is viewed as 
having the technical _approval_ of the   IETF.

"Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must 
undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this document. 
The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures in section 6.5.

"Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived at 
more quickly than _standards_, BCPs require particular care. Specifically, 
BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger Informational RFCs, but rather 
should be viewed as documents suitable for a 
_content_different_from_Informational_RFCs_."


I also note the importance of the "entities" given by the Internet standard 
process in BCPs. I would be interested in knowing which entities are 
participating as such (or nearly as such - I see the W3C, which other 
entity?) to this proposition.

All the best.
jfc




jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages