[Ltru] Fwd: Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17

Dear LTRU WG member,

This should be of interest to you if you follow the progress
of our documents.

Regards,     Martin.

>To: JFC Morfin <jefsey@online.fr>
>From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:05:42 -0400
>Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-announce@ietf.org
>Subject: Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17 

>Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17
>
>This is the IESG response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin
>sent on 2006-08-17 and posted at
>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/jefsey-appeal-to-iesg-08-17-2006.pdf
>
>This was considered during the IESG teleconference
>on the same date. Part 1 of the appeal is summarized as:
>
>"Appeal against the decision to consider a request to the RFC Editor
>to expedite the publication of draft-ietf-ltru-registry,
>draft-ietf-ltru-matching and draft-ietf-ltru-initial"
>
>followed by various arguments.
>
>As discussed in the July 10 response to the appeal from Dean Anderson
>against draft-ietf-grow-anycast, the appeals process is designed to
>handle disputes that cannot be handled through other means. The IESG
>cannot come up with a situation where it would be appropriate to
>appeal the consideration of some action before a decision is made;
>this is certainly not such a case. Instead, participants should
>provide input to that consideration. We interpret this appeal in that
>light: we interpret part 1 of the appeal as arguments why the IESG
>should choose to delay a decision to expedite this BCP.
>
>The IESG makes such requests regularly when another SDO's publication
>schedule requires the ability to cite a forthcoming RFC normatively.
>There is nothing exceptional or discriminatory about doing so in the
>case of Unicode. It would not be sufficient for Unicode to refer
>generically to BCP 47; the reference needs to be to specific text
>and hence to the RFCs.
>
>We note that RFC 2026 does not require appeals to have suspensive effect.
>If an appeal against the approval of a published RFC were to succeed,
>that RFC could be reclassified as Historic.
>
>We find no merit in the arguments in Part 1 of the appeal, which is
>dismissed.
>
>[The response to Part 2 of the appeal will be published later.]
>
>_______________________________________________
>IETF-Announce mailing list
>IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru