> -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ltru-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > Frank Ellermann > Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 8:05 AM > To: ltru@xxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [Ltru] Re: The LTRU initialization document > > > John C Klensin wrote: > > > 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. > > It's not that nobody but you said anything about it, in fact > it's the only case of a potential "rough consensus" not covered > by a half dozen LTRU tickets. > > What Addison said is IMHO correct, 3066bis must replace 3066, > they can't coexist. One of the main design goals was backwards > compatiility. Any solution designed to exist in parallel with > 3066 would be completely different, because it's not forced to > be backwards compatible. For starters there won't be a kludge > like "Suppress-Script" in that hypothetical solution. > Just for the record. Suppress-Script is NOT a kludge. It is the only basis on which RFC3066bis is acceptable at all to the wider community. And there is no such thing as a possibility that RFC3066 and RFC3066bis could exist in parallel. All XML applications and all web services applications currently depend on RFC3066 for the syntax and semantics of 'language tags'. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf