The characterization of this draft as "controversial" because two or three people object to *any* change of RFC 3066, regardless of any evidence presented of evolving needs and careful consideration thereof, is incorrect. Let's let the IESG decide on that. Asking the IESG to abandon the Last Call because you don't like the draft or because you don't care for our responses to you is, frankly, odious. Let the process play out. None of the comments I've seen from you or others can, in fact, be characterized as other than a subjective judgment of the draft or a criticism that applies to the existing draft. It *may* be true that your subjective judgments are correct, but then again, it may be that yours is an outlying minority view, at least once folks have reviewed the draft, arguments in its favor, and responses to comments on it. Let's trust in the process and the IESG to decide how to proceed: present your objections and comments. Please allow for discussion as appropriate, possibly on the languages list instead of on the ietf list, if you prefer. Then, if one party or the other disagrees with the result, the aggrieved can all consider the various appeals processes open to the losers. I'm sorry about the volume, but don't know how else to deal with the complex arguments presented. Addison Addison P. Phillips Director, Globalization Architecture http://www.webMethods.com Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group http://www.w3.org/International Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: 2005å1æ3æ 18:41 > To: Christian Huitema > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications, > and extensions > > > > > --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-languages mailing list > Ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf