> Date: 2005-01-11 13:33 > From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Addressing some issues not covered by others: > In this case we have developed an I-D which would like to obsolete an existing BCP which itself obsoletes a BCP. The I-D was developed using the exact same process, procedures, small-"c" community, and so forth that its predecessors used. I will not argue the subjective issues of whether the community working on this was large enough or the right one nor the procedural issue of whether enough notice was given to others. After that work has progressed for nearly a year and a half, though, we find ourselves in a Last Call. Certainly those individuals and groups not involved in the cut-and-thrust of this draft's development are entitled to an opportunity to consider and comment on our choices, including the requirements we chose to address and the suitability and compatibility of our solution. To be clear, it's a New Last Call which followed an earlier Last Call. Judging by the comments on the technical content and by the authors' comments, it appears that there is to be at least one more draft revision, and therefore presumably yet another New Last Call. One might ask whether hashing out details on the ietf and ietf-languages lists is an effective way to move forward (as opposed to a WG). > Procedural questions about how this should have happened are interesting and important to the IETF at large, but given the specific details of our draft's development, wouldn't it be responsible to separate the two discussions and focus on the draft at hand? I feel that the technical comments about our draft to date have mostly been related to compatibility with specific existing protocols or implementations. I feel that we have suitable ways to address these concerns (either via persuasion or via modifications to the draft). Neither Mark nor I are wild-eyed zealots or starry-eyed purists: we are willing to make adjustments and modifications that make sense in order to achieve the necessary consensus or revise or abandon aspects of the document that raise valid issues. In large measure the technical issues and procedural issues have been discussed separately. They do, however converge inasmuch as the lack of an IETF WG has presumably been a factor in lack of IETF participation in the discussion prior to Last Calls, and the consequent lack of consideration of IETF protocols (including core Internet protocols). > So.... what do we need to do to address (a) concerns about requirements for the draft and (b) concerns about technical objections? I believe that formation of an IETF working group as suggested by several commentators would address both issues. I have separately suggested that via an RFC 2026 section 6.5.2 comment sent to chair@xxxxxxxx on 2004-12-27. It has not yet appeared on the "Appeals to IESG" page (Harald, if you can't find it, let me know off-list, and I'll resend it). > If we use the ietf-languages list to discuss the these sets of issues, then perhaps we can demonstrate the maturity of the draft and progress to BCP. The ietf-languages list, as also noted during recent discussion, is supposed to be for review of language-tag registrations, not for general discussion. The language-tag reviewer has also recently noted his displeasure with the general discussion. Again, setting up an IETF WG with its own mailing list would address that problem as well as the ones noted above. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf