Tags for Identifying Languages
draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bill Fenner |
2006-09-11
|
14 | (System) | This was part of a ballot set with: draft-ietf-ltru-initial |
2005-11-22
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-11-15
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-11-15
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-11-15
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-11-14
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-11-06
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::External Party by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-11-06
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Note]: 'Document shepherd is Randy Presuhn .' added by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-11-06
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Appeal reviewed and denied by the IESG on 6 November 2005. Announcement to be sent. Documents will be approved after the IESG decision is made … Appeal reviewed and denied by the IESG on 6 November 2005. Announcement to be sent. Documents will be approved after the IESG decision is made public. I just have one last question to address with the RFC Editor about BCP status and the matching draft. |
2005-10-31
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-10-31
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Appeal of RFC Editor note received by IESG on 19 october 2005. |
2005-10-31
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Note]: 'Document shepherd is Randy Presuhn . IESG evaluation completed. Approval pending appeal review by the IESG.' added by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-10-25
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Documents on hold pending resolution of RFC Editor note appeal. |
2005-10-20
|
14 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bill Fenner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bill Fenner |
2005-10-18
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2005-10-18
|
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt |
2005-10-14
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-10-14
|
14 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-10-13 |
2005-10-13
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2005-10-13
|
14 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2005-10-13
|
14 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2005-10-13
|
14 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2005-10-13
|
14 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA actions are as follows: The following 2 registries will be marked as OBSOLETE (these will not … IANA Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA actions are as follows: The following 2 registries will be marked as OBSOLETE (these will not be added to or modified). http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tag-apps.htm The IANA will create/maintain 2 registires: Language Subtag Registry Extensions Registry |
2005-10-12
|
14 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot discuss] A minor typo in the ABNF: there needs to be a space in between the ) and [ of field-name = (ALPHA / … [Ballot discuss] A minor typo in the ABNF: there needs to be a space in between the ) and [ of field-name = (ALPHA / DIGIT)[*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-") (ALPHA / DIGIT)] '(ALPHA/DIGIT)' and '[*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-") (ALPHA / DIGIT)]' are both , which is a degenerate of , and concatenation is concatenation = repetition *(1*c-wsp repetition) note 1* = at least one whitespace |
2005-10-12
|
14 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bill Fenner has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Bill Fenner |
2005-10-12
|
14 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2005-10-12
|
14 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2005-10-12
|
14 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot comment] I think that as this draft is structured today, it needs to be a BCP. I do share the concerns of those who … [Ballot comment] I think that as this draft is structured today, it needs to be a BCP. I do share the concerns of those who believe we may have gotten something wrong and that we wish we had a good mechanism for incremental updates or for progression. I don't think calling this a proposed standard gives us any of those things; it just confuses what is going on. I hope we're right with this draft or the mess will be impressive. I'd like to thank Scott and the WG chairs for all the hard work in dealing with the /last call. I found the summary absolutely essential to reviewing the discussion. I did end up going back and reading most of the messages, but the summary was quite useful in focusing my efforts. I explicitly evaluated the security concern regarding privacy and information exposure through tags. q I think the current text in security considerations is appropriate for that issue. |
2005-10-12
|
14 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2005-10-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] In section 3 of draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05, it might be useful for the document to include the URL of the IANA registry. It … [Ballot comment] In section 3 of draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05, it might be useful for the document to include the URL of the IANA registry. It seems to me that anyone interested in this document will want to locate the IANA registry too. |
2005-10-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2005-10-11
|
14 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] Disclosure: Mark Davis, co-editor of draft-ietf-ltru-registry, works for the same employer as me, but in a different department. Editorial nit from Gen-ART … [Ballot comment] Disclosure: Mark Davis, co-editor of draft-ietf-ltru-registry, works for the same employer as me, but in a different department. Editorial nit from Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies: The new title of Figure 2 should be 'Registry Record Format' and not 'record-jar format' (which it isn't in any case). |
2005-10-11
|
14 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2005-10-07
|
14 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2005-10-05
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-09-29
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-09-29
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Ballot has been issued by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-09-29
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-09-29
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-10-13 by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-09-29
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Per an IESG discussion note from Sam, who requested "a statement from you that you've reviewed the ietf discussion and you believe that there are … Per an IESG discussion note from Sam, who requested "a statement from you that you've reviewed the ietf discussion and you believe that there are no IETF consensuses that are in conflict with the group". I have reviewed the working group discussion, last call discussion, and the group's efforts to address comments received during the working group and IETF review process. I believe that the current documents accurately reflect community consensus, with one issue unresolved: should draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13 be published as a BCP or a Proposed Standard RFC? IESG guidance is requested; the working group can live with either option. BCP is the current intended status because RFC 3066 is BCP 47 and the group has been chartered to produce "a successor to RFC 3066". |
2005-09-29
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | A summary of IETF last call comments and the working group's actions taken to address those comments can be found in the archives of the … A summary of IETF last call comments and the working group's actions taken to address those comments can be found in the archives of the group mailing list: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03807.html |
2005-09-22
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2005-09-22
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.txt |
2005-09-14
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-09-06
|
14 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | AD evaluation comments: It's common practice to note documents being obsoleted in the first page document header. It should be noted that RFC 3066 is … AD evaluation comments: It's common practice to note documents being obsoleted in the first page document header. It should be noted that RFC 3066 is being obsoleted. This can be done using xml2rfc as follows: Yes, I noticed the text in the introduction. Both are needed. This is not a significant issue. Add it to the queue for processing after the last call has been completed. |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Last Call was requested by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-08-23
|
14 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-08-23
|
14 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-08-23
|
14 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Question 1.f writeup (long): This is the write-up for section 1.f (on appeals) for the publication request for , which will be sent out shortly. … Question 1.f writeup (long): This is the write-up for section 1.f (on appeals) for the publication request for , which will be sent out shortly. There have been numerous threats and allusions to threats to appeal by one WG participant, Jean-Francois Charles Morfin, also known as "Jefsey", "jfc", etc. It is difficult to present the substance of these in any coherent manner. The key concerns seem to be the following, as raised in various threats to appeal on the working group mailing list: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg01326.html (1) a desire to add *translations* (not just the native names and the identifiers from the source standards) of various fields in the registry. The WG consensus on this issue was to provide UTF-8 support so that the native name(s) of languages could be included, as well as references, but there was opposition to treating the registry as some sort of language name localization database. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg01379.html (2) the belief that issues raised in his messages did not receive adequate discussion. This assertion has found no support on the working group mailing list. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg01487.html (3) the belief that the syntactic limitation of language tags to ASCII (for reasons of backwards compatibility with existing protocols and applications which employ language tags) is somehow discriminatory. The WG discussion gave a clear consensus that language tags are not intended for human consumption, and that the costs of changing the repertoire would far outweigh any conceivable benefits. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg01539.html (4) this one seems to be a general dissatisfaction with the WG's trying to stick to the terms of its charter and timetable, as well as the use of the RT (https://rt.psg.com/) system used by other working groups as an issue tracker. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03029.html (5) an objection to the charter's direction to the working group to produce a "a successor to RFC 3066" (the charter's words), and an insistance that it should instead "complement RFC 3066". No one else supported such a change. (6) a desire to change the language tag syntax (ABNF) to permit productions that would have been forbidden under RFC 3066, etc. This proposition was repeatedly reject by the working group, receiving no support from any other participant. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03069.html (7) We're not sure what he's trying to say here. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03084.html (8) This one probably is referring to his intention to produce a competing language tag registry, which does not conform to the agreed syntax in this document and which is not compatible with the syntax used in RFC 3066, etc. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03087.html (9) appears to be driven by a profound misunderstanding of what the significance of the BCP designation implies. He seems to believe that adoption of this as a BCP would somehow prohibit other ways of identifying languages in other contexts. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03207.html (10) seems to be about alignment with ISO 11179 (WG rejected this issue) and an objection to identifying the editors' affiliations (IETF practice) http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03274.html (11) is about the use of language tags for speech and other non-textual forms of language. The WG already agreed that the draft is adequate for such uses. he also tries to resurrect the decision (ratified by the WG) to limit its scope to human language, and exclude such things as programming languages from its scope. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03330.html (12) he objects to the co-chair extending the period for comment on an issue to permit participants in Asia, Europe, etc. time to comment. Other WG members supported the time allotted as reasonable and sufficient. (The substance of the issue in question was whether to add a file-level "description" field or a way to insert comments not associated with any record into the registry file. This would have no impact whatsoever on the use of language tags or on the registration process.) http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03360.html (13) seems to be focused on a misunderstanding of the meaning of "BCP" status, but in followup also revisits a question of how mailing lists are hosted, which was discussed and rejected by the working group. There may be others, but we think these are the majority of the questions on which he might try to appeal. We think all are without merit, and are at odds with clear working group consensus. This participant also threatened or alluded to appeals in these off-list messages: ============================================================== Status: U Return-Path: Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.76.195]) by samuel.mail.atl.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1dlAsq4Of3Nl3pv0 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lns-p19-1-idf-82-251-86-165.adsl.proxad.net ([82.251.86.165] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1DLaSP-0002bj-Tc for randy_presuhn@mindspring.com; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:30:34 -0700 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050413033840.03359eb0@mail.jefsey.com> X-Sender: jefsey+jefsey.com@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:29:52 +0200 To: "Randy Presuhn" From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Subject: Re: recently-approved tags In-Reply-To: <00b501c53fc7$716c6c60$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050412221722.055e2eb0@mail.jefsey.com> <000d01c53fbf$2d4aafe0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> <6.1.2.0.2.20050413023022.0331b3b0@mail.jefsey.com> <00b501c53fc7$716c6c60$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - mindspring.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-ELNK-AV: 0 [private] At 03:23 13/04/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote: >You spoke of participation by European, Asian, and African students. Yes. >Do you believe their participation would be more disruptive than yours? My participation is not disruptive. It is systematically counter objected and twisted to that end (I regret it is without humor - BTW John Cowan's post is so clumsy we are satisfied for the time being: we will show it to our relations ). We both know you try to fool the IESG. So they do not listen to my last call objections and appeal. I object a poor Draft which already failed two last calls and has not even been reworked. Even if you fool the IESG, win in appeal and have Editor rewording it, it will not fly. I, you, we, they know it. Addison eventually documented it is an XML patch, it does not know about DNS, etc. and is ignorant about OPES and my own CRC needs. As such is it harmful to the network as a BCP. IETF is so uninterested in languages that they do not realize that. Until they realize it or you prove me wrong in seriously discussing the Multilingual Internet, I will defend the Internet against it. >If so, why? Because serious people who understand what you try hate it. As I explained it many times, I see further and I think this could be an opportunity to make IETF understand. But I have to convince. And you do not help in having none of the serious Charter issues discussed. I fully understand you delay me this way. But I am concerned by a network by the people for the people. This has cons and pros. One pro is time. Something Mark Davis has not. Michael (may be not the Chinese Gov...) agreed on his Chinese tags, making you believe you won the day, but you still have to fool the IESG and get accepted by the IETF with the exact very same Draft. Even if I have not a green light for my Draft before May, I doubt you can make it before September. Brian Carpenter may want to closely at the lack of change. Then what are we targeting, counting appeal and IANA, December or February. And then? Had you (the W3C/Unicode team) accepted John Klensin's proposition, RFC 3999 would have patched the XML, and we would be working on BCP 047 seriously in line with the preparation of ISO 639-4. jfc ============================================================== Status: U Return-Path: Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by samuel.mail.atl.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1dtlrr1X73Nl3pv0 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 11:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lns-p19-8-idf-82-65-78-79.adsl.proxad.net ([82.65.78.79] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1DTLRP-0006uI-Ug for randy_presuhn@mindspring.com; Wed, 04 May 2005 08:05:36 -0700 Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504134407.033f9040@mail.jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:32:51 +0200 To: "Randy Presuhn" From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now In-Reply-To: <004d01c55063$1dcbb140$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504021323.0311e500@mail.jefsey.com> <004d01c55063$1dcbb140$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - mindspring.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-ELNK-AV: 0 On 06:38 04/05/2005, Randy Presuhn said: >Hi - >The translation of field identifiers is the registry file is not this WG's >problem. Dear Randy, thank you to accumulate the clear expressions disagreeing with the Charter as I understand it. It will certainly help the IESG, the IETF and the Internet Community to grasp the differences. The use of the proper reference IS our problem. To provide an equal access to information without exclusive, and stability of identification. In five (seven) areas at least: the script I use, the language I use, the region I am from, the reference I use/want, the way I use it, the date I said this and where I said this if these two are not documented otherwise. ASCII textual reminders are of no interest in our network usage context as long as their counter part is not supported in every user script (supported does not mean actually implemented otherwise than by a default solution to be defined). >If someone want to do it in some file they've generated from the registry, >that's *their* (and their users') problem, not ours. I am afraid you confuse here the Unicode proposition which actually provides such a file, and the IANA needed multilingual evolution the Internet community expects from this WG. Please read the Charter with an open mind, and not a narrow vision. I expect you contributed to the Charter and you beleive you understand it: but words used in a restrictive meaning have also a general meaning. What you described for one case, becomes an example of a global issue, and you doiscover that you will not find its stable solution somewhere else than the global resolution. Anyway I am not interested in what authors wanted to say, but in what is published and everyone can read. >Others one this list have already explained why, in general, >translating these bits is probably a bad idea. If someone >does it anyway, they've simply created their own format, and >it's no longer our problem. Our problem is what the IESG has listed in the Charter. And the Charter says it is. In postponing the debate on the understanding of the Charter you only delay the whole process. I fully understand you want to force your vision of the Draft first and you think it will help the debate on the Charter. This is your right as a Chair. You may be right, you may be not. Either you will obtain a "consensus" among the 26 people who ever participated even with one mail in this WG, and end with this process. Or the debate will confirm the preceding IESG positions and decide the Draft conceptions inadequate. We will have gained some experience but will have delayed the whole process. I frankly cannot pursue on my own Draft before that debate. Because it will be either a better, a counter or a parallel Draft and a real waste of time and a source of further confusion if ill targeted. I suppose that I am also entitled to learn from this debate and get new ideas or ideas refinements. >Jefsey: if you truly believe this merits an appeal to the IESG, please do >so *now*. There are two _possible_ matters for appeal. 1. the shocking expressions of exclusion concerning lingual majorities and minorities (the lack of expertise is different). I owe you to wait for you to step in as a Chair to bring back some ethics and therefore credibility to the debate. I will only act, in a progressive way, if you say you do not intend to blame the comments on my demand for an equal multilingual support of every language in field names, as part of a general multilingual support of every language. I still hope that what wrote was just dumb teasing. Boring, but also part of this exclusion. 2. the Draft itsefl. I have grounds a plenty but no reasons yet for an appeal. As noted above you are entitled to your strategy and its outcome can still be correct. I will appeal if this Draft is the Draft eventually endorsed by this WG as the first document (I support parts of it as one of the second documents), due to the way it has been prepared and discussed. But until the last minute I have no reason for a claim since your approach may eventually convince me I am wrong. So, the decision of an appeal is yours: either you make the Draft to address the Charter (in my understanding of the Charter) what is still possible, or you lead a clean sheet review of the Charter (or whatever else) which convinces me that the Draft is OK and the IESG was twice wrong in evaluating the lack of consensus over its approach by the IETF, or the IETF Members were wrong in not seeing thay had actually such a consensus over its approach. jfc >Randy, ltru co-chair > > > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" > > To: "Peter Constable" ; "LTRU Working Group" > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:37 PM > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now > > > > At 19:58 03/05/2005, Peter Constable wrote: > > > > From: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org] > > >On Behalf Of JFC > > > > (Jefsey) Morfin > > > > This is shocking under the pen of a global standadizer. I will not > > > > comment on the contempt for "end-users", non for the exclusion > > > > of non-Latin script programmers. > > > > > >Do you make as much fuss about (say) the fact that HTTP headers use > > >Latin characters and that one can't substitute Arabic or other scripts? > > > > > >We're talking about documentation of protocol elements. When end users > > >are involved, I think everyone here would strongly support the need for > > >"multilingualization", but his is not an end-user issue. > > > > Dear Peter, > > This kind of question is always embarassing, because it shows how much the > > author do not understand what he discusses. I know this is not on purpose. > > I will address it to show IESG, and possibly IAB, in appeal that I tried > > every time I could to explain how much this WG is out of its track. > > > > This is not an accademic meeting over three ISO standard's conflicting > > oddities. This is not a W3C forum trying to patch an XML misconception. > > This is not a few followers helping with the wording of a twice last-calls > > denied concept. > > > > This is an IETF WG having to study, check and document an Internet and > > Internet application wide response to the need of identifying and tagging > > the languages. For and according to the Internet standard process to > > generate standards, documents, procedures, protocols, best practices. For > > the Internet to become legally acceptable as a global system. > > > > To do that this WG should have attracted enough authoritative experts (or > > declare itself uncompetent) to study and complet from their own experience, > > developments and plans, the points in the Charter. > > > > I am sure that in this process you would have realized that HTTP is an > > Internet protocol in the area of this WG as are every Internet protocol. So > > you would understand that I am making no special, but general, fuss. Your > > contribution to the WG would have been still more valuable, because you > > would have learned from seasoned experts that the very basis of a network > > architecture is consistency and coherence. A coherence with the human > > protocols (languages) it supports the ASCII Internet has not. A big problem > > our job is precisely to start addressing. > > > > For the rest, I am not in a position to comment: please document (RFC?) > > what is an "end user" for an IETF WG. I obviously understand what it may > > mean for an host application designer (like W3C?) but here it does not make > > any sense to me. > > > > all the best. > > jfc > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltru mailing list > > Ltru@lists.ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ltru mailing list >Ltru@lists.ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru ============================================================== |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Shepherd write-up: 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready … Shepherd write-up: 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? yes 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has received detailed review within the ltru WG. Reviews have been solicited outside the working group, but to date none have been received. Given the depth and breadth of expertise of the working group's members, we are not concerned about the adequacy of the review. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No. 1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Strong (rough) consensus, with one outlier. 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. Yes, details supplied separately. 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Yes. 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Yes. Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? There is a reference to ABNF , which is currently in the RFC editor queue. There are no other normative references to internet-drafts. |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Intended Status has been changed to BCP from None |
2005-08-23
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Note]: 'Document shepherd is Randy Presuhn ' added by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-08-18
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | Draft Added by Scott Hollenbeck in state AD is watching |
2005-08-18
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt |
2005-08-17
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-11.txt |
2005-08-05
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-10.txt |
2005-07-14
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-09.txt |
2005-07-01
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-08.txt |
2005-06-29
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-07.txt |
2005-06-24
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-06.txt |
2005-06-16
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-05.txt |
2005-06-10
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-04.txt |
2005-06-03
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-03.txt |
2005-05-20
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-02.txt |
2005-04-27
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-01.txt |
2005-03-16
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-00.txt |