--On Sunday, 11 September, 2005 04:22 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
> [ltru-initial]
>> The WG and IESG should do what they think best, but this
>> really seems pretty obvious to me.
>
> Yes, it's _now_ obvious, but it wasn't before you started
> this thread. So keeping the rest of "ltru-initial" as an
> informational or historic RfC might also help others when
> they look for a "how-to".
I think so.
>> none of the above has anything to do, one way or the
>> other, with my concerns about BCP versus Standards Track
>
> That puzzle is for the IESG, I hope that they find a better
> answer than "toss a coin". On the technical side I'd like
> to see a way to communicate the "intended status" in an I-D
> with xml2rfc (not only for Bruce's reviews). And I hope
> that splitting the BCP series into "techno" vs. "meta" (or
> similar) shows up in a future carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-01.
Two observations: (1) In a situation like this, if the community
leaves the IESG to make this sort of decision without
significant community input, then the community deserves
whatever the IESG does, including coin-tossing. If people
care, they should say so clearly enough that the IESG's role is
to interpret community input, not to make things up because no
one (besides some soreheads like me) is saying anything.
FWIW, that split in the BCP series is already covered in
draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd.
> [applications-specific profiles]
>> Whatever the right answers to those concerns are, they are
>> not as obvious, at least to me.
>
> For that part all I found as potential candidates is "never
> use script subtags" (e.g. audio) and "always use a script"
> (= intentionally violating several SHOULDs in conjunction
> with Suppress-Script). If that's really all it's obvious,
> no additional profile-headaches necessary at the moment.
Perhaps my imagination is worse than yours, but I can easily
imagine "numeric country codes prohibited" or "alpha-2 country
codes prohibited" (note that matching the two requires large
tables that are not, as far as I know, freely available for free
and that change). I can also imagine "script required" or
"region, if present, ignored" or a number of other variations
and profiles.
> It's possible to add this later if some future extension
> registry offers more exciting choices than to script or
> not to script.
>
> Maybe we could mention this in a note about the extension
> registries. Also as a hint for the future DS^W3066ter.
"Add later" is much more plausible, at least formally, with a
Proposed Standard than it is with a BCP. The notion of
replacing a BCP with a new BCP that says something different is
always going to be dicey unless there has been an actual and
obvious change in common behavior.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf