> From: ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-languages- > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly > > Do what you feel is warranted, Bruce. You don't appear to be trying to > achieve consensus, which is the touchstone of the IETF process as I > understand it. If you feel issues should be taken to the IESG, then do so. > > You have yourself noted that the draft is an individual > submission, not the result of an IETF process. "consensus" > doesn't apply to an individual effort. IF you want to > adhere to IETF process, by all means ask the IESG to set > up a working group, with a charter, a Chair, etc.; I > fully support that. I don't understand why these kinds of comments are arising. To my understanding (Harald can correct me if I'm wrong), the process that has been taken in preparing the proposed revision of RFC 3066 is the same as what was done in development of RFC 3066 as a replacement for RFC 1766. A general consensus was achieved on the IETF-languages list in preparing the draft for "RFC1766bis", and in exactly the same way a general consensus was achieved on this list in the preparation of "RFC3066bis". Subsequent steps were taken with RFC 3066 for it to be given BCP status, but that did not involve establishment of a working group; I don't understand what should prevent the same thing happening in this case. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf