Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714140510.04536780@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:28:20 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0684B0C9@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0684B0C9@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] Last call: Private UseTags
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 01:53 14/07/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>The use of Alpha and AlphaNum, which JFC considers a discriminatory
>limitation,

I think there may be a confusion here in my typing. I consider what is 
discriminatory (and also absurd) the limitation of Alphanums to 8 bytes in 
x-tags.

>is nothing of the sort, and cannot be changed unless
>backward compatibility is to be abandoned.

I fully support the logic presented by F. Charles that this backward 
compatibility with something which never existed (since future x-tags are 
by nature ... future) is absurd. This is a good documentation of the 
religious opposition of this Draft to future and innovation.

>Since there was consensus
>from the outset that backward compatibility must be maintained,

Please reference the URL of this consensus. I make it a last call issue 
that such a backward "compatiblity" when non necessary is not to be introduced.

>and
>since it was clear from the last call back in December that backward
>compatibility with protocols that consume RFC 3066 is essential,

1. as someone put it against me: December Last Call is over.
2. I was I think one of the most active during that Xmas Call....

>then I
>think this is not open to reconsideration, and therefore this proposed
>text cannot be accepted.

"I think" is not a consensus. "I think myself" is not either. Only "we 
think" makes one.
I do not know if a text cannot be accepted due to your opinion. But I know 
that no one will think there a consensus against running code....

>Thus, I think this issue can remain closed.

If you mean the whole Draft, I think it could. But this would not change 
that the current work in many areas need a framework. I do not oppose a 
grasroots one, but I think that an adherence of IETF to that process would 
be of interest.
jfc







_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru