Re: [Gendispatch] draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

 

A small point about your use of “stable”. 

 

I think that the converse is largely subjective (I know unstable when I see it), and it doesn’t follow that that which I don’t think is unstable is actually stable.

 

It would be helpful, I think, if you were to replace the term “stable” (which you only use twice) with something that clearly expresses what you mean. At that point we can review and decide whether we agree with you.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

PS There is a Jim Morison joke in here somewhere, but I can’t be bothered to extract it.

 

From: Gendispatch <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: 08 August 2022 06:03
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Gendispatch] draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis

 

Colleagues,

 

A while ago I started an effort to revise BCP 97.  I announced it to GENDISPATCH early on but it hasn't gotten agenda time or direct discussion here to date.

 

It is currently an AD-sponsored document, which is a common pattern for IESG-initiated work.  There was some support for this path on the original thread where it was discussed, but Rich Salz suggested that it would be better if venue selection was done by one of the *DISPATCH groups.  I'm happy to divert it here if there's interest in calling the question the dispatch way before it goes any further.

 

The document can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis/

 

...and the original discussion thread:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tCQUsGFzyQ_I9qwabJdtVFF5XKI/

Naturally I yield to the chair(s) to run the GENDISPATCH process in terms of venue selection.  Does this need agenda time, or is it possible to ask the question(s) on the list only?

 

-MSK, ART AD