Subject: Re: [Ltru] Ltru consensus call: rename 4645bis I-D?

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:06:44 -0600

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> The document in question has the file name 
> draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt
> If we change the name, we'd need to update 464bis accordingly.  I'm 
> not sure how the I-D tracker tool would handle a name change at this 
> stage of the process, but I assume the IESG can cope with it.  The 
> question for this working group is two-fold:
>   (1) Do we want to change the name of the file?
>   (2) If so, what do we want the new name to be?

Just for the record, since Alexey has already requested Last Call, and I 
wouldn't want to delay that...

As editor, I have no particular opinion on this.  I had always assumed 
from the moment we started referring to "4646bis" and "4645bis" that the 
names made sense and would stick, but if the IETF wants to apply a 
particularly rigid interpretation to the suffix "bis"--referring only to 
a revised version of an existing document and never to a new document 
that serves the same purpose as an older one, in a new context--then 
that is their culture and far be it from me to change it.

Virtually any name change would be a better alternative than retooling 
the draft as a revised version of 4645.  That would be a disaster on 
many levels.  As Addison pointed out, the name of the draft will 
disappear anyway once it is published as an RFC.

As a side note, if we did change the name, it would entail almost no 
work from me, but might entail substantial work from Addison and/or Mark 
(whose draft contains references to mine) and from the co-chairs and/or 
AD (who have to deal with the I-D tracker and other records).

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:59:35 -0700

Does anyone know if use of "bis" within IETF originated in one of the revisions of BCP47? Somewhere along the way I got that impression.

Peter

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:11:18 +0900

I don't think so at all.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/bis?maxhits=425&key=name&dir=asc
will give you a list of all the drafts with 'bis' in it, as far as the 
tools site knows.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/04/10 15:59, Peter Constable wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:44:15 -0700

No, it didn't. 'bis' is an appellation of long-standing in IETF circles. I believe it actually originated with ITU (telephony standards).

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 12:00 AM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Ltru consensus call: rename 4645bis I-D?
> Importance: Low
> 
> Does anyone know if use of "bis" within IETF originated in one of
> the revisions of BCP47? Somewhere along the way I got that
> impression.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:45:46 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 7:44 AM
> No, it didn't. 'bis' is an appellation of long-standing in IETF circles.
> I believe it actually originated with ITU (telephony standards).

For example, V.32bis, (never mind V.32ter) published in 1991 was
an "extension" to V.32.  (As a sometime writer of modem firmware,
I have to say that calling it an "extension" was quite a stretch - the
training/retraining protocol is substantially different, and there's
a huge difference in capabilities.) As others have explained, "bis"
has been around in other contexts for a long time.

But we're straying off-topic.  This thread has served its purpose.
let's end it.

Randy