Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050713052111.048e2ac0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:24:30 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Adding more 2119 keywords
In-Reply-To: <42D4806D.C44@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C1092A4@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<006c01c5871c$c00ae260$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<42D444DE.64CC@xyzzy.claranet.de>
	<20050713021532.GA3180@NYCMJCOWA2> <42D4806D.C44@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 04:46 13/07/2005, Frank Ellermann said:
>John.Cowan wrote:
>  > when I posted that, I didn't yet know we were in last-call
> > status.
>
>Randy posted it in
><http://mid.gmane.org/001001c585ed%245b049ee0%247f1afea9@oemcomputer>
>
>I just found the "secret script" for this part of the process:
>
>MUST and SHOULD:
>
>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/05mar/proceedings/slides/wgchair-0/sld32.htm
>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/05mar/proceedings/slides/wgchair-0/sld33.htm
>
>WG Last Call
>
>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/05mar/proceedings/slides/wgchair-0/sld35.htm
>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/05mar/proceedings/slides/wgchair-0/sld36.htm
>
>So we are at step 35 of 50, that's only 70% ;-)  Bye, Frank

Frank,
as you may note:

"Document must be reviewed and actively supported by a significant number 
of people, including experts in all applicable areas ... or it should not 
be sent to the IESG. Silent does not mean consent during this phase". I do 
not think this is fully matched up to now. I accept there are experts in 
this WG on various applicable parts, and that I am one of them, focusing on 
OPES, DNS, IDN, ccTLDs, Common of Reference Centers, but there are 
certainly many other areas. A list would be useful. And I do not support 
the Document in its present form as a replacement of RFC 3066 but I accept 
it with comments as a complement of RFC 3066. Otherwise the we are to do is 
to review all the RFC quoting RFC 3066 and proactively making sure they are 
not adversely affected. Both is in theory and in the way they are used.

"Document should be extensively reviewed both within the WG and across 
other areas". Due to the difference of point of view and the lack of common 
evaluation of the Charter, I consider myself as one of the "other areas". I 
will try as indicated before to provide a review before having to go on 
vacations.

But I am certainly disappointed by the lack of Charter clean sheet study 
(cf. 
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/05mar/proceedings/slides/wgchair-0/sld24.htm 
)

I strongly recommand to consider this:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/05mar/proceedings/slides/wgchair-0/sld23.htm

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru