ietf@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.

Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
From: Bruce Lilly
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:42:44 -0500
>  Date: 2005-01-11 05:17
>  From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> ÂMy understanding of the purpose of the IETF/W3C Liaison 
> group is, precisely, liaison over issues of importance to both the 
> IETF and the W3C.

Since the draft-philips-... effort isn't an IETF effort,
exactly who would represent the IETF, on what basis, and
for what purpose?

> I don't know 
> what is the prevailing IETF position, but quite a few of the 
> contributors to the langtags discussion have treated longevity of 
> data and metadata as being of no importance (cf the debate over how 
> to handle changes to ISO 3166 Codes for the Names of Countries).

I believe that ("being of no importance") is a gross
mischaracterization which does not represent what
*anybody* involved in the discussion since the December
New Last Call has said, much less the claimed "quite a few".

> vs> Then there was the awesome list of authorities that the IETF 
> vs> list members is ignoring at its peril.
> vs> See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33563.html
> 
> Ignoring at its peril? ÂI was simply demonstrating that standards 
> bodies and individuals with long and respected track records have 
> been involved for some years in the langtags work.

You specifically stated that the draft-philips-... "work has
been carried out as an informal IETF/W3C/Unicode collaboration",
and proceeded to list 3 W3C participants, 1 Unicode Consortium
participant, mentioned a W3C WG and a Unicode Consortium
project, but *no* IETF participation and of course no IETF
WG.  That remarkable comment -- "IETF [...] collaboration"
with no IETF participation -- occurred after considerable
discussion of the process.  It also occurred two days after
the close of the New Last Call, so I have until this latest
reference back to that peculiar statement declined to comment
on it.

Something is gravely wrong when an ad-hoc group believes
that it is in "collaboration" with the IETF by ignoring
published (RFC 2418) IETF procedures and protocols and by
failing to advise or consult with established IETF groups
likely to have an interest in the IETF standard which the
ad-hoc group proposes to replace.

When a public gross mischaracterization of New Last Call
discussion is piled on top of such claims of "collaboration",
we've gone well beyond "gravely wrong".  I'm dumbfounded
and can't find a term to adequately portray my shock and
horror at such outrageous remarks.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>