Eric, I see no further need for discussion since this has now degrade into a personal attack, which is also typical of you.
Aside: If "higher levels of professional courtesy" means subtle sarcatic personal attack on a continuous basis and derailing working group because of private conflicts, I think I rather not have any part of "higher levels of professional courtesy". -James Seng > James, > > If writing "you have not follow the list" makes you feel better, enjoy. > > In , Subject: [idn] Update > Charter revision 2, you wrote: > > Comments please. > > > >-James Seng > > > >--- CUT HERE --- > ... > > In , Re: [idn] Update Charter > revision 2, you wrote: > ... > > The note on 23rd is a notice that there will be a new update, not a > > request for discussion. > > Now, as to the substance. > > Of the changes you propose to the Description section, only one, the > 3rd, > has the effect of limiting scope. Whether the limit is useful is another > issue. > > The second proposed change: > > The WG work may modify the DNS protocol and other related work > undertaken by the DNSEXT WG. > > But such changes must be co-ordinated with the DNSEXT WG. > > I left off comment on the second sentance because it is unnecessary, no > matter what the first sentance reads, in fact, the very idea that your > off-list discussion has extended to you controlling authority over > DNSEXT > is comic. > > As to the substance of the proposed change, which is interesting: > > > Because you are assuming that IDNA is the only one moving forward. I > am > > assuming we will get other proposal. > > In your working group there is rough consensus to exclude any > non-application > framework, and the DNSEXT WG exists for extensions to the DNS (and in > this > context "DNS" is understood not to be an "application", though it sure > as heck > is one). > > I'm writing a UTF-8 draft (no surprise except how long its taking), and > Erik > asked me to send a copy to your working group, but I'm submitting it to > the > DNSEXT WG, for consideration to adopt as a working group document, not > to your > WG, which I view as out of control and about the worst run WG I've seen > in the > decade+ I've been participating in the IETF. To be fair, most of my work > since > the mid-80's has been in a more collegial operating systems environment, > where > higher levels of professional courtsey are the norm. > > Commenting on the third proposed change, you observed: > ... > > I could argue the existing charter allows us to redefine a new > > character code set for the purpose of IDN. > ... > > Correct. This was the subject of a discussion (off-list) between myself, > the ADs (Erik and Tom), the technical advisors (John and Harald), > Patrik, > and both you and Marc. > > There is a difference between creating an alternative or alternatives to > iso10646, and discussing CRLF mapping. In your zeal to control the > reordering > problem space (and it is complex), you over reached. > > > You have obviously twist my words, as usual. > > Maybe you made a mistake. Consider the possibility. > > > ... I see no valid arguments in your comment. > > > > Thank you but i like to hear from others. > > By all means, the work group is more than just some egos let loose on a > list. > > Eric > > >
