Subject: [Ltru] Re: IPA as a script

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:25:13 +0100

Peter Constable wrote:

> ??!!

Please forget it, I misunderstood what you want to do with Lphn... ;-)

 [LTRU "resolution" or similar]
> That is certainly something I'd consider. This WG owns the 4646 LT
> space, so if it seems like the sensible solution to us and the
> 15924 JAC won't budge, we can ask them to reserve an ID.

I'm guessing, and maybe it's completely wrong:  I guess it's more in
the "IETF style" if somebody (e.g. you) drafts a short text, then we
discuss it until enough of us like it, "sign" it as individuals, and
send it to somebody at the 15924-side.  Noting that the individuals
who signed it are currently working on 4646bis in the IETF LTRU WG.

Like Harald's 3683 petition last year, everybody was free to sign it,
some did, others didn't, and after some time Harald sent it to the
IESG or maybe only Scott (the A-D at this time).  For something more
"official" we'd need to convince the Chairs and the A-D, that could
get them into lots of trouble (appeals etc.), but what we do or don't
as individuals is nobody's business but our own.  Of course we would
not claim to speak on behalf of LTRU, let alone the IETF.

IMO LTRU doesn't "own" the LT space, it only proposes some rules to
manage it, approved by the IESG on behalf of the IETF after a Last
Call.  The IETF is free to change those rules later (as it did for
1766 and 3066), and while they are in force the review list "owns"
this space to some (small) degree, most of it is determined by the
source standards following the approved rules.

Frank

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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:47:33 -0800

Of course you're right here. What I was thinking of was that we could
draft text in 4646bis that effectively defined a subtag as something
proprietary to the LST registry rather than derived from a source
standard -- which means the process you describe.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[email-masked]] 

I'm guessing, and maybe it's completely wrong:  I guess it's more in
the "IETF style" if somebody (e.g. you) drafts a short text, then we
discuss it until enough of us like it...

manage it...