IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Mon, 26 May 2008 05:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CCD3A6914; Sun, 25 May 2008 22:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE6E3A6914 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 May 2008 22:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.682, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id egJagESATsMy for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 May 2008 22:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054513A6895 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2008 22:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=MbtSFfGu0Xn28VvW8T3d+T3QYGBpnyNVOsWwyn8Y2W3JIdxmnSFp47sEEjsvMcFt; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [69.3.145.216] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1K0VXP-000657-Dj for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 26 May 2008 01:46:27 -0400
Message-ID: <002001c8bef3$e0497520$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <008a01c8bedc$72b97b20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <30b660a20805252132g28ff50b0kd5b04d6f47ca35d2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 22:46:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a63b7957ab9b23b3513c7a5955e9aca4f67d1e48ca68e7b3350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 69.3.145.216
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Hi -

> From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
>
> This is crazy; we do not have consensus to introduce a major architectural
> change from RFC4646.
...

As I see it, the alternative, since we've been unable to
reach closure, is to shut down the WG.  Folks interested in the
subject could then request a new working group when they come up
with a solution.  We're far behind schedule, and the debate, while
excruciatingly voluminous, has produced little progress.  I'm
ready to say "to heck with it" and recommend closure of the WG,
as unsatisfactory as I know that would be.

But let's wait to see whether Martin reads the responses differently
from how I did, or if he adds the numbers differently.  If he comes
to the same conclusion as I did, then you may, if you wish, appeal
to our Area Director under RFC 2026 section 6.5.1, challenging whether
we've provided adequate opportunity for your views to be considered,
or claiming that this is a technical error which would put the BCP 47
update "in significant jeopardy."

Randy
ltru co-chair

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email