At 14:37 12/01/2005, Misha Wolf wrote:
A first step could be to compare
the two standards bodies'
requirements for language tagging, to establish whether they are
compatible. Further steps could follow, depending on the
outcome.
Note that while HTTP, for example, is an IETF standard, the Web
Bruce Lilly wrote:
[lines re-wrapped and annotated with authors' initials]
> mw> My understanding of the purpose of the IETF/W3C Liaison group
> mw> is, precisely, liaison over issues of importance to both the
> mw> IETF and the W3C.
bl> Since the draft-philips-... effort isn't an IETF effort,
> Date: 2005-01-11 05:17
> From: Misha Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 repres
Hi John,
Your mail [1] puzzles me. I don't think I suggested that the W3C is
developing language tags. On the contrary, I wrote [2]:
| The W3C is highly dependent on the RFC 1766/3066 family of RFCs,
| as language-handling in HTML and XML is delegated to these RFCs.
| Within the W3C, the r
Vernon Schryver wrote:
[some lines re-wrapped]
vs> Please credit some of us with understanding the meaning of
vs> "escalate" in the intended sense of "evoke to an authority that
vs> will issue a writ of mandamus."
*I* certainly did not intend such a meaning. Maybe I used the wrong
word; if s
What John says below is good sense and IMHO should put the
discussion of this subject to bed (ignoring subthreads where
people have gone off on to other topics without changing
the subject field).
The phrase "Last Call" has built-in semantics. If something is
sufficiently straightforward that the o
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified,
>> publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 21:29 + Misha Wolf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> vs> unless the incredible "I'm gona tell the Liason on you"
> vs> threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
> vs> as usual that it sounded like.
>
> That appears to be a
At 19:06 10/01/2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for
adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be
demonstrated ON THE RECORD.
And the point I'm trying to make is that ther
> From: Misha Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> vs> unless the incredible "I'm gona tell the Liason on you"
> vs> threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
> vs> as usual that it sounded like.
>
> That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my:
>
> mw> Now the IETF is, of course, free
attached where the discussion can
happen.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vernon Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- de
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [I do understand what people are concerned about here but I also find
> it important to remind myself from time to time how we are all working
> towards raising the bar, and once raised, someone will speak up to
> raise it even further. Why
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:15:46 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the
> usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual
> submissions.
Actually, i was not intending to indicate such a relationship, nor do i believ
Vernon Schryver wrote:
vs> unless the incredible "I'm gona tell the Liason on you"
vs> threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
vs> as usual that it sounded like.
That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my:
mw> Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes,
mw
--On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
M
My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to
do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that
were better done earlier.
I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF maul
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> [...] The whole "community consensus"
> thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word
> "standard." [...]
I would like to recall that new documents enter the "standards-track"
as Proposed Standards and there
> "Tom" == Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> I believe any individual submission should have a publicly
Tom> identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed
Tom> in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues,
Tom> hopefully resolve them, before last
er" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
> At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> >The way to make it obv
> From: Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records.
> When we have
>a mailing list like "ietf-types" or "ietf-languages" where there is a long term
> community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there
> be taken into
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support
for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support
be demonstrated ON THE RECORD.
d/
And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records.
When we ha
Hi.
In the hope of making part of this discussion concrete and
moving it a step forward, rather than (or in addition to)
debates about philosophy, let me make two suggestions:
(1) Last Calls for independent submission and similar
standards-track (and BCP) documents should include, explicitly,
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:43:32 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
> s much as we might like the handy "default yes"/"default no"
> terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the
> standards track have varying levels of support and interest
> when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Def
--On 7. januar 2005 13:43 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from
your list are curious:
1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes
*after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a work
Dave, I think that the requirements for a successful last call depend
on how much review and interest have been demonstrated before the last
call.
For example, I recently last called draft-housley-cms-fw-wrap. It
received no last call comments. What should I do with the draft?
Well, in that cas
Dave,
You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the
usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual
submissions. Is that assumption borne out in truth?
Just asking. I haven't checked too much.
Eliot
Dave Crocker wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:46
Dear Ted,
the experience of this Last Call shown the problem comes from the diversity
of the internet. You may feel that a proposed solution is minor in your
area and not realize that it has a big impact in others areas. This is why
WGs are important: their Charters are the only place for some k
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:46:41 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> The usual case for an individual submission is, I think:
>
> - there are a number of people who see a need for it
> - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work
> on it
> - nobody's signific
At 6:07 PM +0100 1/7/05, Tom Petch wrote:
Looking at the recent announcements of I-Ds, I think we will get a
substantial number of URI/URL related drafts in the coming months which
will also test this procedure. Their revision numbers are clocking up
so they are being discussed but not AFAICS on a
be standards track.
I am in the 'default no' camp.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: individual submi
Harald,
This does not discuss the language tags comment. This case however provides
some experience. The real problem I see is the increased need of Practice
Documentation. RFC 3066 is a BCP yet it introduces issues (and the proposed
RFC 3066bis does more) which are not established but proposed
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:59:19 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> In each case, there was evidence of a problem that
> "some people" felt was worth solving.
My comments were in response to an explicit statement that "the community
doesn't care much" and my comments included the statement "A standards
Harald,
Using these --and my recent experience with
draft-klensin-ip-service-terms, which is still in the RFC
Editor's queue-- as examples, let me suggest that advancing all
of them is still consistent with what I took Dave to be
suggesting. In each case, there was evidence of a problem that
"so
[note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document]
Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions
(you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file):
RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change
RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission
RFC 3934 - d
> However the reason
> why many things come in as individual submissions is that the community
> doesn't care much.
I sure hope you are very, very wrong.
If the community does not care much, then I do not see the purpose in making it
an IETF standard.
A standards process is primarily abou
34 matches
Mail list logo
