--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 17:49 -0800 Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Could you please pursue this rather technical discussion on a > specialized list, rather than the main IETF list? Christian, It seems to me that we are in a bit of a procedural bind on this. The spec has been developed, we are told, on the "ietf-languages" list, but that is a mailing list, not a WG with a charter. The document is being processed as an individual submission, but an individual submission of a BCP that is intended to replace a BCP that arguably received broader community review and that is in fairly wide use. Whatever else the spec may be, it appears to be controversial, with at least some folks who are often considered (however wrongly) to have some idea about what they are talking about being quite dissatisfied with aspects of it. We are in (but nearing the end of) an IETF Last Call. It is unusual to Last Call an individual submission document that turns out to be this controversial, but the nature of the Last Call rules is such that the IETF list probably is the right place, at least procedurally, to have the discussion. >From my point of view, a note to the IESG asking that they formally abandon the Last Call given the level of controversy and find a WG (and WG mailing list) to assign the task of reaching some sort of agreement to would be entirely appropriate, but that is probably the only procedurally-correct way to get this off the IETF list while still leaving open the possibility of a document for which a claim of approval by IETF consensus could be made. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf