> Date: 2004-12-21 00:57 > From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > The RFC 3066bis approach involves creating a registry of all the pieces > that can make, or be combined to make, a language tag. ÂThis is much > easier to implement and understand than chasing down the various > standards and their history, and it permits stability that cannot exist > if ISO maintenance agencies change their codes. Substituting a Numbers Authority for a Maintenance Agency might not solve the problem; indeed it may bring new problems. IANA isn't infallible, and has botched some registry entries. See http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/msg01477.html for an example. > Vernon Schryver [...] characterized debating RFC 3066bis (for over a year!) > within the IETF-Languages group, and only presenting it to other groups > during the Last Call period, as a "process problem," OK. > and charged this > group with engaging in "lawyerly talk such as whether 'accounts' is more > appropriate than 'account'" even though no such exchange ever took place > (I checked the archives back to January 2002). No, he was referring to concurrent discussions on the IETF mailing list. > Now Bruce wants us to wait a few more days before rolling out his > suggestions to fix these perceived problems. > > This is a filibuster, an attempt to stall RFC 3066bis out of existence. I also (i.e. in addition to JFC) find that characterization offensive. I am responding to an IETF New Last Call in accordance with established procedures, and within the time period established. I had at one time entertained an informal approach to addressing the procedural issues, but given such an accusation, I am now inclined to use the formal procedure outlined in RFC 2026 section 6.5.2. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf