Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications,
"stability", and extensions
info at utel.net
Thu Dec 30 23:03:39 CET 2004
Full agreement. Thank you Tex.
This discussion now lead to nowhere and may delay the draft.
1. I have documented the needs and listed the discrepancies (only one asked
a question on that, all the rest is noise over my comments on others
positions - what is normal since the target was to comment a draft).
2. I have brought support to the current text with the necessary provision
it is to replace RFC 3066 in the areas RFC 3066 was intended for in Jan
2001 with possible extensions preferably subject to IAB guidance concerted
with external liaison WG. Otherwise I oppose it.
3. I have received enough documented support from serious lurkers or list
members to have a good understanding of what is needed and how it should be
addressed. To come as an outsider helps catalyzing existing but dormant
4. I suppose serious initial opponents/surprised experts have now
understood most of what I documented, and need time to digest if and how it
could/should be amalgamated in, or separated from, RFC 3066 ter.
I have no vocation to be a martyr of any IETF cause and I will from now on
only respond private and constructive mails on this issue.
I thank all those who contributed and apologize to those I may have
confused or teased (but it was a tease-back :-). It was a very interesting
exchange which shown the complexity to share network generations cultures
and layers. I learned a lot. Among others that my current needs "which do
not exist" will be helped by others.
If some are interested I have just started the
http://mail.jefsey.com/mailman/listinfo/ml_jefsey.com mailing list. Its
only purpose is to discuss (not disputing) the way the Internet Standard
Process can be used to document a multilingual Internet. This means
questions such as :
- what would a multilingual internet mean and what users needs would it address
- can the current IETF/IESG Internet standard process adequately document
it, under which conditions
- what kind of architectural IAB guidance should be seek about a
multilingual internet framework
- should a WG-Multilingual be investigated or not and if yes with which
charter to propose
- what would be the impact of such a multilingual internet on the existing
Internet documents and procedures and on NGN
- what kind of preparatory work/standard/best proactice, studies, contacts,
etc. would be necessary
- how could this relate with other real world, users, standardization,
intergovernance and WSIS entities.
I wish you all a nice 12/31 and an happy and fruitful multilingual new year!
At 22:02 30/12/2004, Tex Texin wrote:
>As the number of question marks, exclamation marks, asterisks and other forms
>of expressing digital shock and awe increase with each mail, I would like to
>suggest a temporary cease and desist policy with respect to responding to JFC
>until the chair chimes in, presumably after the holidays.
>The discussion doesn't seem to be headed towards consistent understanding of
>the policies and the discussion is no longer shedding much additional light.
>JFC's mails deserve a response, (of which there have been several) but now we
>are down a hole from which I do not see an end short of the chair clarifying
>definitively the policies and either rejecting or supporting the objections.
>The commentary doesn't seem to be affecting 3066bis at this point and probably
>won't unless the chair directs the authors to do something specifically...
>To the extent the discussion is taking time away from the finalizing of -09 or
>other issues, it is delaying something that most have declared as needed
>To the extent it may be causing reviewers to tune out of 3066bis
>is also harmful.
>If there is are specific technical issues, they should continue to be
>My two cents.
>Wishing everyone a happy and productive 2005, whereever you are in 001 land.
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages