addressing WG/BCP/tags issue [was: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...]
Dear Bruce, I changed the subject as the referred case only shown different network architecture confusions. Positively addressing this confusions will help more the solution of the case at hand than anything else. On 01:42 12/01/2005, Bruce Lilly said: The language-tag reviewer has also recently noted his displeasure with the general discussion. Again, setting up an IETF WG with its own mailing list would address that problem well as the ones noted above. Obviously a formal WG with a formal Charter approved by the IESG and reviewed by the IAB (I detail so John Klensin is happy) is the best (I would say only if there must be relations with W3C) solution. The organization of such a WG is to follow the BCP 025 rules (RFC 2418). This means that your mail starts on the general list the debate on a new WG. But we are to be careful in not proposing an inadequate WG which would increase confusion. The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list has for several years carried well a job in a WG like fashion. Since the competence of the authors cannot be questioned, the mess probably shows that the problem was with its charter and in the resulting pattern of aggregated competences (see below). In a private mail copied to the Application Area Directors I have suggested a WG which would scale the particular langtag problem to the general issue of consistent a tagging in protocols, procedures, services and applications, to a WG-Tags. This would not remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] the custody of the RFC 3066 (bis) langtags they shown they know to govern well. My rationales are that: 1. we are in a typical case described by RFC 2418 Part 2.3 first paragraph (Proposed working groups often comprise technically competent participants who are not familiar with the history of Internet architecture or IETF processes. This can, unfortunately, lead to good working group consensus about a bad design.). IMHO the WG set-up process should be enough to make authors feeling the minor (yet blocking) points to correct. 2. the real blocking factor is that the proposed solution does not scale (it is OK for a user to chose in a menu, not for independent web services negotiating a common interinteligibility through commonly identified identical language dictionary, semantic, locale, defaults, etc.). IMHO this both will be the same in other areas than languages, and comes from the lack of a generalized tagging concept, semantic, filtering language, multilingualization rules and tools, libraries, tables, icons, etc. Once such a WG starts working langtags could be taken as a first example and benefit from a more generalized and innovative support, rather then being challenged (at everyone cost and delay) by a universal cultural ontology including a language (arts, music, publishing, icon, soundex, period, authors, etc.) tagging semantic. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
I generally agree with many of the observations about what the IETF process should probably be. I also observe that there is a process for individual submissions, which Mark and I have scrupulously followed. We ask that the IETF community consider our work on its merits, not just on its pedigree (or lack thereof). It is right to be conservative about what becomes a BCP, but not to the point of excluding good work, and we feel that our work is not a proprietary submission seeking to subvert the standards process. In fact we feel that we've been very considerate and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no matter the source. In this case we have developed an I-D which would like to obsolete an existing BCP which itself obsoletes a BCP. The I-D was developed using the exact same process, procedures, small-c community, and so forth that its predecessors used. I will not argue the subjective issues of whether the community working on this was large enough or the right one nor the procedural issue of whether enough notice was given to others. After that work has progressed for nearly a year and a half, though, we find ourselves in a Last Call. Certainly those individuals and groups not involved in the cut-and-thrust of this draft's development are entitled to an opportunity to consider and comment on our choices, including the requirements we chose to address and the suitability and compatibility of our solution. Procedural questions about how this should have happened are interesting and important to the IETF at large, but given the specific details of our draft's development, wouldn't it be responsible to separate the two discussions and focus on the draft at hand? I feel that the technical comments about our draft to date have mostly been related to compatibility with specific existing protocols or implementations. I feel that we have suitable ways to address these concerns (either via persuasion or via modifications to the draft). Neither Mark nor I are wild-eyed zealots or starry-eyed purists: we are willing to make adjustments and modifications that make sense in order to achieve the necessary consensus or revise or abandon aspects of the document that raise valid issues. I would like the community at large to consider this specific I-D--both the requirements for it and the technical merits of our solution--attempt to understand our choices and provide (objective) feedback that will allow us to achieve consensus for or against it (or a slight revision thereof). We are trying to work within the confines of the IETF's process to achieve what we see as the necessary progress on this issue. So what do we need to do to address (a) concerns about requirements for the draft and (b) concerns about technical objections? If we use the ietf-languages list to discuss the these sets of issues, then perhaps we can demonstrate the maturity of the draft and progress to BCP. Best Regards, Addison Addison P. Phillips Director, Globalization Architecture http://www.webMethods.com Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group http://www.w3.org/International Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
From: Addison Phillips [wM] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact we feel that we've been very considerate
and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging
community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no
matter the source.
Based on what I have seen in this mailing list, I disagree.
I would like the community at large to consider this specific
I-D--both the requirements for it and the technical merits of our
solution--attempt to understand our choices and provide (objective)
feedback that will allow us to achieve consensus for or against it
(or a slight revision thereof). We are trying to work within the
confines of the IETF's process to achieve what we see as the necessary
progress on this issue.
If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow the IETF's
processes, they would have taken one of the suggestions for the next
step and temporarily (or permanently) retired from the field. It is
clear that there is no consensus to advance this document. Even its
authors have admitted that by talking about a new version.
As has been said repeatedly, a new version would require a new Last
Call. Last Calls are on documents, not promises to produce a new
document that might address objections to the current document. Long
time spent in IETF processes is not a reason to ignore the clear answer
from the IETF processes of No Consensus, even when the long time
actually is spent in the IETF processes. The IETF process involves
official IETF Working Groups and official IETF WG mailing lists. Time
spent in an unrelated mailing list is not part of IETF standards process
any more then the time spent by an Informational RFC author thinking
about things is part of the IETF standards process.
Besides, isn't the Last Call officially over? Isn't the topic of the
language tags BCP closed, dead, kaput, finished, and done until the
IESG and the individual submitters of the document choose the next step?
I can't see any significance for Mr. Phillips comment except as yet
more evidence that the default answer for individual submissions
must be ABSOLUTE NO! He is basically saying You must publish our
BCP because we followed all of the steps as we understood them and the
default result of that is surely to publish.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
Vernon == Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vernon If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow Vernon the IETF's processes, they would have taken one of the Vernon suggestions for the next step and temporarily (or Vernon permanently) retired from the field. It is clear that Vernon there is no consensus to advance this document. Even its Vernon authors have admitted that by talking about a new version. No, currently this draft is in Ted's hands. It makes no sense for people to withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all. In a situation where you get a lot of last call comments it is best for the pinvolved parties to get together and decide what to do next. Correct action is more important than prompt action. Many people suggested ways of moving forward. Deciding which of these is best will require some time. The process will work much better if the authors help make this decision than if the unilaterally withdraw their draft or do something like that. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
Vernon == Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, currently this draft is in Ted's hands. It makes no sense for people to withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all. Vernon That's fine, but does suggest some questions: Vernon - Is the Last Call over? The answer to this question is clearly yes. You can see this for yourself in the ID tracker. What this means is a bit unclear. If someone brought up a new comment that pointed out a new critical defect in the specification, the IESG would almost certainly consider the comment even though it was received after the last call period. However it is probably not useful to continue existing discussions of the draft. Vernon - If so, was its result no supporting consensus? That's hard to answer or put another way, things don't quite work in such a way that that question has an easy answer. Procedurally speaking the responsible AD (Ted in this case) decides what to do next. He can ask for revisions; he can talk to the authors; he can try to create a working group; he can tell the authors he will not sponsor the draft; he can issue a ballot and put the draft on the IESG agenda. Those options are intended to be a fairly exaustive list of what an AD could do after any last call and are not intended to express any opinion about the current document. So, at some level you will just have to wait to learn Ted's opinion of the situation; the rest of us are also waiting for the same thing. Note that there are procedural safeguards. If an AD brings a document to the IESG that is not ready, other IESG members can object. If the IESG approves a document that is not ready, the community can appeal the decision. If an AD proposes a new working group, the community, IAB and IESG get to review the proposed working group. I hope this helps you understand the process. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] In fact we feel that we've been very considerate and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no matter the source. Based on what I have seen in this mailing list, I disagree. I'd be curious to know what has led to the impression that the authors have not been open to comments or criticism. He is basically saying You must publish our BCP because we followed all of the steps as we understood them and the default result of that is surely to publish. I am unable to see how you derive that from his message. Rather, he appears to be saying, if there is not enough consensus for acceptance of this draft, then surely we should be able to find a way for stakeholders to continue work together toward a draft that does achieve consensus. Peter Constable ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess... That's fine, but does suggest some questions: - Is the Last Call over? - If so, was its result no supporting consensus? - If the result was no supporting consensus, will the current document nevertheless be published as a BCP? - If the result was no supporting consensus, will a revision of the document be published as a BCP without a new Last Call? Last week I saw a comment that seemed to answer first question with Yes. If the answers to the other questions are not Yes, No, and No, then as others have said, the IETF has far more serious process problems than how to account for the expenses of the to be hired help. This is comment is a general one rather than being directed toward the particular case at hand. It seems to me that your comment is making a presumption, as a participant on the IETF list, regarding what the outcome of the question regarding result must be. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought it is the role of the IESG to make that determination, not members of this list; and if that is the case I would certainly think it possible for them to weigh concerns that have been raised against responses provided and reach a conclusion that there has been adequate disposition of the comments raised. Again, I am not saying that in this case I think that is what the IESG will or might or should do; only that in general I would think it is something that they *could* do, in which case the outcome of their decision even when concerns have been raised cannot be assumed a priori. If outside groups can publish IETF BCPs without the let, leave, or hindrance of the IETF, then the honest thing to do is to get rid of all of that tiresome WG stuff. No outside group is doing this. On the other hand, if the answers are Yes, Yes, No, and No, then contrary to the other person's request, there is no good reason to talk about the language tags document here and now. I agree that a yes to the first question -- is the last call closed? -- would appear to be adequate grounds for there to be no further discussion on this list in relation to the I-D in question. Whether there may be grounds for discussing other process-related questions possibly including the area of work to which this I-D pertained is, of course, a separate question. Peter Constable ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
Date: 2005-01-11 13:33 From: Addison Phillips [wM] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Addressing some issues not covered by others: In this case we have developed an I-D which would like to obsolete an existing BCP which itself obsoletes a BCP. The I-D was developed using the exact same process, procedures, small-c community, and so forth that its predecessors used. I will not argue the subjective issues of whether the community working on this was large enough or the right one nor the procedural issue of whether enough notice was given to others. After that work has progressed for nearly a year and a half, though, we find ourselves in a Last Call. Certainly those individuals and groups not involved in the cut-and-thrust of this draft's development are entitled to an opportunity to consider and comment on our choices, including the requirements we chose to address and the suitability and compatibility of our solution. To be clear, it's a New Last Call which followed an earlier Last Call. Judging by the comments on the technical content and by the authors' comments, it appears that there is to be at least one more draft revision, and therefore presumably yet another New Last Call. One might ask whether hashing out details on the ietf and ietf-languages lists is an effective way to move forward (as opposed to a WG). Procedural questions about how this should have happened are interesting and important to the IETF at large, but given the specific details of our draft's development, wouldn't it be responsible to separate the two discussions and focus on the draft at hand? I feel that the technical comments about our draft to date have mostly been related to compatibility with specific existing protocols or implementations. I feel that we have suitable ways to address these concerns (either via persuasion or via modifications to the draft). Neither Mark nor I are wild-eyed zealots or starry-eyed purists: we are willing to make adjustments and modifications that make sense in order to achieve the necessary consensus or revise or abandon aspects of the document that raise valid issues. In large measure the technical issues and procedural issues have been discussed separately. They do, however converge inasmuch as the lack of an IETF WG has presumably been a factor in lack of IETF participation in the discussion prior to Last Calls, and the consequent lack of consideration of IETF protocols (including core Internet protocols). So what do we need to do to address (a) concerns about requirements for the draft and (b) concerns about technical objections? I believe that formation of an IETF working group as suggested by several commentators would address both issues. I have separately suggested that via an RFC 2026 section 6.5.2 comment sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2004-12-27. It has not yet appeared on the Appeals to IESG page (Harald, if you can't find it, let me know off-list, and I'll resend it). If we use the ietf-languages list to discuss the these sets of issues, then perhaps we can demonstrate the maturity of the draft and progress to BCP. The ietf-languages list, as also noted during recent discussion, is supposed to be for review of language-tag registrations, not for general discussion. The language-tag reviewer has also recently noted his displeasure with the general discussion. Again, setting up an IETF WG with its own mailing list would address that problem as well as the ones noted above. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
--On Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 17:55 -0500 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Procedurally speaking the responsible AD (Ted in this case) decides what to do next. He can ask for revisions; he can talk to the authors; he can try to create a working group; he can tell the authors he will not sponsor the draft; he can issue a ballot and put the draft on the IESG agenda. Those options are intended to be a fairly exaustive list of what an AD could do after any last call and are not intended to express any opinion about the current document. So, at some level you will just have to wait to learn Ted's opinion of the situation; the rest of us are also waiting for the same thing. Note that there are procedural safeguards. If an AD brings a document to the IESG that is not ready, other IESG members can object. If the IESG approves a document that is not ready, the community can appeal the decision. If an AD proposes a new working group, the community, IAB and IESG get to review the proposed working group. I hope this helps you understand the process. Sam, let me add one or two possibilities to your very helpful description and list of safeguards above and to Ted's shorter status summary. If the AD decides he or she (like you, I'm trying to be quite generic) won't sponsor the thing, the authors can go AD-shopping and try to convince someone else to pick it up. I wouldn't normally recommend that, if only because I'd assume that the relevant AD would have asked if anyone else wanted it and tried to do a handoff if that was appropriate, but the procedures clearly permit it. And, if the AD or IESG decide that the document isn't ready, the authors could try to organize a WG as an alternative to trying to revise the document among themselves and as a means of completely separating out the community support for doing something issue from the specific proposals of the document. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
