Subject: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:19:36 -0800

According to 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13008&rfc_flag=0,
this is in RFC Ed Queue, but it isn't broken down any more finely. Is 
there any way to find out what the expected publication date is?

Mark*
*

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

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:07:13 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Davis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry
> 
> According to 

The queue it self is visible here:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html

Note that the RFC Editor is still holding the document for the matching
draft to be completed.  While the matching draft isn't identified as a
normative reference, I believe this is an artifact of the group's decision
to separate the update of the matching text from 3066 into a new document so
that both ltru-registry and ltru-matching will obsolete 3066.  I know that's
not what everyone in the group wanted, but it was identified as an issue
during IETF last call and the IESG thought it significant.

The queue doesn't provide any info about publication dates.  Based on the
status, though, you guys and gals had better get the matching document
finished if you want it to move.

-Scott-

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:22:52 -0800

Holding up the registry dependent for matching, when the latter was just 
informative in 3066, is completely bizarre. But it sounds like a lost 
battle.

How do we get moving on the matching document? My last two messages were

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04315.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04317.html

I heard nobody object to them in follow-on messages.

If there are no other serious objections to parts of the documents, I 
suggest we issue a new draft containing that new text, and start the 
mechanism on getting to last call. Any objections?

Mark

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:42:29 -0500

> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Scott Hollenbeck
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry
> 

The issue from the IESG's (and at least one external reviewer's) perspective
was that there's nothing in section 2.5 of 3066 to suggest that the matching
text is informative.  The lack of 2119 imperatives does not mean "not
normative".

-Scott-

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:51:21 +0100

At 18:22 06/02/2006, Mark Davis wrote:
>Holding up the registry dependent for matching, when the latter was 
>just informative in 3066, is completely bizarre. But it sounds like 
>a lost battle.
>If there are no other serious objections to parts of the documents, 
>I suggest we issue a new draft containing that new text, and start 
>the mechanism on getting to last call. Any objections?

I will certainly carefully review the proposed draft (focusing on the 
filtering vs. profiling aspects, and on the relation with automated 
language identification algorithms and solutions - I feel necessary 
at this stage considering the status of the arts and semi-operational 
propositions).

I thank you all for implicitely confirming what I felt: when I do not 
involve myself, not much work happens at the WG-LTRU. I must confess 
that the delay, provided by the WG-LTRU disinterest in moving the RFC 
3066 update cause, did help me. But, it may be time to move on this 
issue, after the IAB ruling. Otherwise the IETF proposition will turn 
late vs. others!

Please remember that Mark and most of you have a rendez-vous with 
your market on March 16th.
jfc

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:12:58 -0800

For starters we could submit my proto-draft-09 and edit from there. I didn't follow some of your thread in January (9 January, coincidentally, marked my first day at Yahoo!, so I was not paying attention for a couple of days).

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Mark Davis
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:23 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:38:51 -0800

I just sent you my additions to 09 in XML, so we could go ahead and 
include them.

Mark

Addison Phillips wrote:
>>> normative reference, I believe this is an artifact of the group's
>>>       
>> decision
>>     
>>> to separate the update of the matching text from 3066 into a new
>>>       
>> document so
>>     
>>> that both ltru-registry and ltru-matching will obsolete 3066.  I know
>>>       
>> that's
>>     
>>> The queue doesn't provide any info about publication dates.  Based on
>>>       
>> the
>>

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:46:25 +0100

At 19:12 06/02/2006, Addison Phillips wrote:
>For starters we could submit my proto-draft-09 and edit from there. 
>I didn't follow some of your thread in January (9 January, 
>coincidentally, marked my first day at Yahoo!, so I was not paying 
>attention for a couple of days).

Congrats for your new employment! I mean it.
jfc

PS. But this also means that the WG-LTRU counts one Unicode member 
employee more. Also that both authors are Unicode members employees, 
one on the solution side and one on the service side. Will you sign 
as W3C or as Yahoo!?  (I suggest you do as Mark and others and do not 
use your company mail name). I only use mine because this way people 
are informed I copy other members and that I specifically represent 
the interests of a community.

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:42:42 -0800

I've updated the editor's copy of draft-09, including a new date and a (modified, edited) version of Mark's text. Notably, I made the RFC 2119 keywords UPPERCASE and fixed some terminology. The meaning is substantially the same as Mark's proposals.

I have posted the documents to the usual place:

http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.txt
http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.html
http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.xml

I will submit this document pending idnits and the Fenner ABNF validator shortly.　Any comments will be incorporated into draft-10. You can view a diff (maybe) at:

http://tinyurl.com/axdtj

Addison

Addison Phillips

> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: Addison Phillips
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > For starters we could submit my proto-draft-09 and edit from there. I
> didn't follow some of your thread in January (9 January, coincidentally,
> marked my first day at Yahoo!, so I was not paying attention for a couple
> of days).
> >
> > Addison
> >
> > Addison Phillips
> just

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:12:41 -0500

> From: r&d afrac [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1:46 PM
> To: Addison Phillips; 'Mark Davis'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry
> 

Please remember that there are no corporate "members" here.  Employment
status changes nothing and "representation" carries no weight as far as the
IETF is concerned.

-Scott-

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:09:19 +0100

r&d afrac wrote:

> this also means that the WG-LTRU counts one Unicode member
> employee more.

You're a personal member, so what ?  Will it count against me
that I only arranged for write-access on their "general" list
some weks ago, but didn't use it so far ?

> Will you sign as W3C or as Yahoo!?

They'll use a working address, that's mainly relevant for the
secretariat and later the RFC-editor.  _Any_ working address
will do, and _any_ organization they care to name is okay.

> I only use mine because this way people are informed I copy
> other members and that I specifically represent the interests
> of a community.

This isn't the case, you don't represent anybody but you here,
otherwise you'd be listed on one of the "IETF liaison" pages:

<http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaisons.cgi>

We've discussed the question of LTRU liaisons a year ago here.

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:33:53 +0100

>status changes nothing and "representation" carries no weight as far as the

Correct.
But we are in a real world where ethic not necessarily stands and 
commercial pressures and COI do exist.
I have been submitted to harasment enough at the IETF, for having 
accepted to help someone who hurt me, to know that.
Using corporate mail address has a clear meaning. You perfectly know 
that, or you would use your Verisign mail address.
jfc

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:55:07 -0800 (PST)

> commercial pressures and COI do exist.

Perhaps. But there is no causal relationship between this and the address
someone happens to use. In fact if someone is attempting to unduly influence
things for commercial interests they're likely to make sure they _don't_
use an email address associated with said commercial interest, wouldn't you
think?

> accepted to help someone who hurt me, to know that.

That's your opinion. Others do not share it.

> that, or you would use your Verisign mail address.

Nonsense. Whether I use my mrochek.com address (which despite being a .com is
my own personal domain), my mrochek.org address, my nfreed.com address, my
acm.org address, my innosoft.com address, my hmc.edu address, or my sun.com
address is entirely a matter of what's most convenient for me in a given
circumstance. It rarely if ever has any bearing on the role I'm assuming - if
for no other reason than the there's no real relationship between the two. As
far as the IETF is concerned any time I assume a role other than an individual
contributor I'm careful to call it out explicitly. And I am far from alone in
this approach.

The idea that the email address someone sends from informs you of nefarious
purpose makes about as much sense as predicting the future through the reading
of entrails.

				Ned

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:12:59 -0500

> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:34 PM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck; [email-masked]
> >status changes nothing and "representation" carries no 
> weight as far as 
> >the IETF is concerned.
> 
> Correct.
> But we are in a real world where ethic not necessarily stands 
> and commercial pressures and COI do exist.
> I have been submitted to harasment enough at the IETF, for 
> having accepted to help someone who hurt me, to know that.
> Using corporate mail address has a clear meaning. You 
> perfectly know that, or you would use your Verisign mail address.

Nope, that's a false assumption about my employer email address.  I use this
one for my AD business because employment isn't permanent and I prefer to
not have to change things (or lose archives on corporate mail systems) if I
change employers.

Maybe it's hard to believe or accept, but I don't buy into the theory that
someone using an employer's email address must have an agenda driven by
their employer.  It may just be a matter of operational convenience for
them.

I won't explore this rathole any further.  IETF policy is documented and
clear.  Reminders shouldn't be necessary.

-Scott-

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:59:16 +0100

>their employer.  It may just be a matter of operational convenience for

I am afraid you did not understand the point. It is not that you 
would use the name of your corporation as a tool of influence - as 
Ned explained it you would probably hide the name in that case.

It is the difficulties you can create to your company, because using 
a company name is official - and very often you do not use a 
disclaimer or someone can remove it in responding. In the case that 
Ned seems to know better than me, I accepted to make what the company 
asked for, to protect themselves and their employee against me. It 
worked for them. But did not protect me from the IETF :-)

The only issue I see at using a private mail is when you would hide 
this way a COI you did not think about, because your company is 
engaged in various things, or because you copy people that other list 
members do not know. This is in particular the case in large groups, 
when people do not know your customers (as a consultant) and 
non-profits where mutual information is lose.

jfc