Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050713022329.0360b1b0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:28:09 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe)
	Private Use Tags
In-Reply-To: <000601c584c4$d0658de0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <20050709160302.YPWK4366.mta6.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<003001c584c0$dd04e540$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<000601c584c4$d0658de0$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 22:28 09/07/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
> > From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
> > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:00 PM
> > Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private 
> Use Tags
> >
>
> > In the interest of achieving consensus, I won't argue further about the
> > exact wording of this section.  I do insist that private-use tags and
> > subtags in "x-" not be removed from the grammar, or proscribed entirely.
> > It MUST be legal for consenting adults to generate and interpret
> > "x-this" and "en-x-that" in the privacy of their homes.
>...
>
>I think we're all agreed on that.  Based on the discussion, I'll leave it to
>the editors to pick appropriate words to reflect our rough consensus that
>private use tags and subtags should remain in the document, but there should
>be a "health warning" regarding the risks associated with using them.  Several
>alternative wordings have been offered, and I think the feedback on the 
>mailing
>list will provide sufficient guidance to the editors to form text we can live
>with.

I am obliged to come back on this. If the editors are to form a text we can 
live with, I think we also could. And if cannot, we should make clear in a 
note, or through a consensus of this group, that it has never been 
considered that "x-" tags could ever have to do with pornography (or 
exclusion as some of comments I received during the ICANN meeting).

>With that, I'll mark this issue resolved.  If someone finds the words they
>choose unacceptable, we can re-open the issue.

I reopen the issue, not necessarily on the text itself but about the 
guidance given to the editor.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru