Hello Robert,
It's not the IETF which wants to move this on on Standards Track,
it's (currently) James as an individual submitter. The IESG just
did what it does for all such requests from individuals: Put the
document out for IETF Last Call and tell the relevant mailing lists
about it.
Now it's your (and everybody else's) turn to tell the IESG what
you think about this draft. A short, but clearly argued and nicely
worded mail, with some easy-to-follow pointers to further material,
is all that is needed. This may say "okay with Standards Track iff
these things get fixed" or "should be experimental because ..." or
even "too controversial for an individual submission, needs a WG".
The time you invest in this email will be a lot better spent than
writing yet another mail to James and this list.
Lisa (the "sponsoring" AD) and the rest of the IESG will then look
at all the input they get, and will make a decision.
Regards, Martin.
At 07:03 06/05/17, Robert Sayre wrote:
>
>On 5/16/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At 4:33 AM +0200 5/16/06, Robert Sayre wrote:
>> >I thought the working group was fairly clear about the dubious value
>> >and placement of these attributes,
>>
>> For the benefit of Lisa, who is the sponsoring AD for this document,
>> please list links to those messages.
>
>James changed the document in response to those messages. That should
>be enough. Maybe she could ask James about them. It's not my
>obligation to spelunk for them, and it's certainly not your place to
>start making demands like that.
>
>> >So you don't think they're important or needed, and then
>> >WG doesn't have consensus on them.
>>
>> Quite true, but it is true because there has never been a call for
>> consensus on the document, and there won't be in the future.
>
>Well, I'm not going to quibble with you about procedural details. But
>I have to wonder why they're in the document at all.
>
>Looks like the IETF wants to publish a "proposed standard" explicitly
>designed to break a very popular implementation, with no technical
>reason. I think that speaks volumes about the IETF, its management,
>and the quality of its "individual" contributors.
>
>>>You don't have to listen to the WG, but if one or two WG members are
>>>going to deploy and then standardize whatever they've done, that's an
>>>informational document.
>>
>> That is not true. If it is a protocol or a format, standards track is
>> also appropriate.
>
>Well, I don't want to standardize some of what James has deployed. It
>won't work in Sean's implementation. I'm not sure I can interoperably
>implement the parts in question. Your two biggest client implementers
>aren't real happy about this. It might be appropriate if you really
>stretch, but it's sure not smart.
>
>--
>
>Robert Sayre
>
