Subject: [Ltru] IESG Telechat Results

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:36:23 -0400

We just finished the IESG evaluation discussion.  Michelle Cotton of IANA
still has some questions that might require clarifying text changes.  She
says she'll get back to us before tomorrow.  Nothing else came up.

On the BCP vs. PS discussion, the IESG felt that BCP is appropriate.  I'll
need to add some text to the ballot write-up noting the need for the
matching document to completely obsolete 3066; the net effect may be that
these documents get held up in the RFC Editor queue until the matching draft
catches up.

Once we have things cleared up with Michelle it'll be OK to submit -14.
I'll then be able to approve the documents.

-Scott-

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:19:35 +0200

>I'll then be able to approve the documents.

Dear Scott,
Thank you to let me know the starting date for appeal and Justice 
actions. Specially in BCP case?

Dear all,
This most probably closes my WG-ltru duty and starts the IESG and IAB 
appeals and international and political periods.

For reasons I will not review I consider your RFC 3066 bis as an IETF 
declaration of war on cultures, in full awareness after the IDNA 
failure. I needed it to be clear to all (exposing who is behind and 
why), clean (not leaking and definitely opposing or supporting our 
fully documented users positions and SSDOs documented  needs) and in 
best time (May or now). Not to add confusion on warmonging.

I would certainly have preferred this to be a courteous, professional 
and fast common work, as I proposed it. I accept the aggressivity I 
met was a patch for missing answers in front of the changes ahead I 
represented. I learned how to trigger the WG and obtained all what I wanted.

I am sorry for Addison, full of respect for Mark and friendly to 
Peter (read ISO 11179-3 Part 6). Harald plaid his part so well. I 
thank those who understood/agreed it was our common interest I took 
the flak in their behalf to avoid possible compromises, helping by 
private mails/meetings. The world needed an IETF clear cut position, 
to support or to by-pass. We obtained it.

There was little hope the IETF would change political sides. I was 
the only one who wanted to give it a chance. I lost. Today. I am 
stubborn. Tunis will say if it is time saving or delaying.

jfc

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:58:12 -0400

I just closed with Michelle of IANA.  She has nothing more to add.

Randy and editors: please produce an update to address the IESG evaluation
comments.

-Scott-

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:29:51 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] IESG Telechat Results
>

Great!
 
> Randy and editors: please produce an update to address the IESG evaluation

Ok;  I'd like the editors to send a list of the *exact* diffs to the WG mailing
list (e.g. output of a diff tool) so we can verify with you (and the WG) that
everything is as it should be before sending in the update, mindful of the
October 24, Monday - Internet Draft final submission cut-off at 09:00 ET
(13:00 GMT).

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:54:08 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> I'd like the editors to send a list of the *exact* diffs to
> the WG mailing list (e.g. output of a diff tool)

That used to be difficult, but the new experimental xml2rfc
at <http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html> now offers
unpaginated text output, I've just tested it with draft -13.

New -14 not yet available in <http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/>

[ There's an interesting draft-phillips-record-jar-00 with
  valid ABNF, but it's not exactly the same as in -registry ]

The IESG evaluation is now at 2+8 : 1+0, bye, Frank