Subject: RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.

From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:29:34 +0000

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> but I would urge that any course of action which would 
mw> cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C 
mw> (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided.  I 
mw> suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to 
mw> the IETF/W3C Liaison group.

Where is the threat?  I was suggesting that as the IETF and 
the W3C have a liaison group and as there appear to be 
disagreements as to how to move forward, the matter be raised 
at the liaison group.  Is that not what such groups are for?

--
Misha Wolf
Standards Manager
Chief Architecture Office
Reuters

--------------------------------------------------------------- -
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:51:52 -0700 (MST)

> From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>

> at the liaison group.  Is that not what such groups are for?

Please credit some of us with understanding the meaning of "escalate"
in the intended sense of "evoke to an authority that will issue a writ
of mandamus."  Other words in Mr. Wolf's message including "any course
of action which would cause a parting of the ways" were not lacking
in forcefulness.  Then there was the awesome list of authorities that
the IETF list members is ignoring at its peril.
See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33563.html

When I read Mr. Wolf's message the first time, I was reminded of an
IETF slogan about rejecting kings and presidents as well as ancient
friction between the DDN protocol designers and users and the ISO.

I suspect that the language tag saga is not as bad as it seems and
that some good new IETF documents might come of it.  It should also
serve as a red flag for another instance of the general problem of the
quality of IETF documents.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:08:28 -0500

> at the liaison group.  Is that not what such groups are for?

Misha,

Ignoring, for the moment, several other aspects of your
statement that I, and apparently some others, found upsetting,
liaison or groups like that one are usually constituted to sort
out issues arising between real or official projects of the
relevant groups.  In some cases, they can be, and have been,
used very effectively to sort out issues arising between the
projects or work program of one group and somewhat-related work
program items of the other group.  But, in this case, 

	* We have been assured that there is no W3C project in
	this area.
	
	* There is also no IETF project in this area: we have no
	mechanisms for having projects outside of the WG process
	and activities for which the IAB or IRTF formally sign
	up (and it is always an open question whether the latter
	two are "IETF projects" or not).
	
	* And, regardless of the fact that some people are doing
	work in both places, there is no formal liaison between
	the IETF and W3C over language tag issues (and the IETF
	has never recognized "informal liaisons" as having any
	standing).

So, while I'm much in favor of the ability of that particular
coordination group to discuss whatever its members find
interesting, I can't imagine what you think a discussion there
would accomplish in this case.  It has no ability to create IETF
WGs, even though several of its members are IESG members who
might participate in a WG creating process.   Not even the IESG
has the ability to retroactively turn a design team-like
discussion into a WG.  Similarly that group has no authority to
turn this effort into a W3C project with which the IETF would
feel an obligation to coordinate.  And certainly it can't create
a joint standards development activity or overrule the IESG on a
decision about consensus in the _IETF_ community.

So I'm having trouble seeing that suggestion as helpful.

     john