--On Thursday, 06 January, 2005 16:30 -0800 Peter Constable <petercon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:ietf-languages- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of >> John C Klensin > > >> (3) Finally, there is apparently a procedural oddity with this >> document. The people who put it together apparently held >> extended discussions on the ietf-languages mailing list, a >> list that was established largely or completely to review >> registrations under 3066 and its predecessors. My >> understanding at this point is that their good-faith >> impression was that the discussions on that list were >> essentially equivalent to those of a WG. > > I believe I can say that it was done this way because it > followed the example of the development of RFC 3066, which to > my knowledge (as a member of the IETF-languages list at that > time) happened in the same way. It was certainly done with a > good-faith impression that appropriate procedures were being > followed. Peter, just to clarify... In my opinion (which isn't necessarily worth much), the procedures that were followed were perfectly reasonable. Anyone can form a design team and put a document together, and there are no rules that bar such a design team from using and building on a mailing list set up for something else. That may or may not be wise, but it is certainly permitted. The only place this runs into a problem is if someone presumes that a document developed in the way this one was developed is equivalent to a WG product, or that it is entitled to the presumptions of relevancy and correctness that go with a WG product. From that point of view, it is nothing more or less than an individual submission (or the output of a self-defined design team) and the comments Dave and I have been making apply. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf