Modification Request: frr (Suppress-Script: Latn)
randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Thu Oct 4 19:27:29 CEST 2007
> From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at roadrunner.com>
> To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at icu-project.org>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Modification Request: frr (Suppress-Script: Latn)
> Mark Davis wrote:
> > We clearly need to have policies that make it clear what we are to do,
> > and what are reasonable grounds for refusal. The point where we differ
> > is that those are established by the LTRU group, with their embodiment
> > being BCP 47.
> When we (LTRU) try to add specific language of this sort to BCP 47,
> usually the response is, "That should be up to the discretion of the LSR
> and the ietf-languages list." But without guidelines, "discretion"
> turns into controversy, and decisions are made on an ad-hoc basic.
Establishment of such guidelines clearly belongs to the ltru WG.
First, there is the question of observing IETF due process in
the development of such guidelines. Secondly, there is the question
of document "ownership" and publication. Thirdly, there is the
matter of the ltru WG charter and history. All of these clearly point
to the ltru WG as the correct place for the development and publication
of such guidelines.
It certainly is the WG's option to leave specific decisions to the
discretion of the LSR, but unless such language already exists in
the BCP, it should not be presumed.
Now please, there's been quite enough meta-discussion. Let's nail
down the policy on ltru at ietf.org, since it appears that what is
already written is insufficiently clear.
More information about the Ietf-languages