Subject: RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:30:09 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-languages-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of John C Klensin

> (3) Finally, there is apparently a procedural oddity with this
> document.  The people who put it together apparently held
> extended discussions on the ietf-languages mailing list, a list
> that was established largely or completely to review
> registrations under 3066 and its predecessors.    My
> understanding at this point is that their good-faith impression
> was that the discussions on that list were essentially
> equivalent to those of a WG.

I believe I can say that it was done this way because it followed the
example of the development of RFC 3066, which to my knowledge (as a
member of the IETF-languages list at that time) happened in the same
way. It was certainly done with a good-faith impression that appropriate
procedures were being followed.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:24:06 -0500

--On Thursday, 06 January, 2005 16:30 -0800 Peter Constable
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> From: [email-masked]
>> [mailto:ietf-languages- [email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>> John C Klensin
> 
> 
>> extended discussions on the ietf-languages mailing list, a
>> list that was established largely or completely to review
>> understanding at this point is that their good-faith
>> impression was that the discussions on that list were
>> essentially equivalent to those of a WG.
> 
> I believe I can say that it was done this way because it
> followed the example of the development of RFC 3066, which to
> my knowledge (as a member of the IETF-languages list at that
> time) happened in the same way. It was certainly done with a
> good-faith impression that appropriate procedures were being
> followed.

Peter, just to clarify... In my opinion (which isn't necessarily
worth much), the procedures that were followed were perfectly
reasonable.   Anyone can form a design team and put a document
together, and there are no rules that bar such a design team
from using and building on a mailing list set up for something
else.  That may or may not be wise, but it is certainly
permitted.  The only place this runs into a problem is if
someone presumes that a document developed in the way this one
was developed is equivalent to a WG product, or that it is
entitled to the presumptions of relevancy and correctness that
go with a WG product.  From that point of view, it is nothing
more or less than an individual submission (or the output of a
self-defined design team) and the comments Dave and I have been
making apply.

   john