Subject: RE: [Ltru] LTRU Milestones past due

From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:33:02 +0100

> I propose that we ask our ADs to permit the following updates:
> Aug 05  Submit registry structure draft for IETF Last Call

Should that be Sep 05?

Misha

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

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

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.

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:02:37 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Misha Wolf" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:33 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] LTRU Milestones past due
>
...

I hope not, but we're not going to get there until this WG decides
that the drafts are good enough to request publication.  The current
discussion of ABNF changes worries me that we might be on the
verge of needing a third WG last call, though that decision is up
to the co-chairs' discretion.

As a technical contributor, I think we passed the point of diminishing
returns some time ago.  I've been in standards long enough to realize
that any non-trivial specification will probably have errors and benefit
from clearer text, but I've also seen too many documents where too
much time has been spent on items that really have no impact at all
on the interoperability of implementations.

The WG needs to ask itself:
    - are the procedures for running the registry sufficiently clear so
      that IANA will be able to carry them out?
    - are the procedures for requesting the registration of new tags
      sufficiently clear so that registrants will be able to provide the
      necessary information to [email-masked]?
    - is the syntax and semantics of language tags sufficiently well
      specified to address the requirements stated in the WG charter?

I believe the answer to all of these is "yes", and has been for quite
some time.

As a co-chair, though we can set deadlines for WG last calls, if the
WG decides to address some in-scope issue, it is better in my
opinion to deal with it in the WG last call, rather than risk its resurrection
in IETF last call, even if in my technical judgement the issue does
not warrant the delay.  Of course, by dallying like this, we run the risk
that our ADs might shut us down for failure to meet our milestones.
I've seen this happen in the Operations & Management area, so
I know that this is not merely a theoretical possibility.

Randy