RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.

--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 21:29 +0000 Misha Wolf
<Misha.Wolf@reuters.com> wrote:

> Vernon Schryver wrote:
> 
> vs> unless the incredible "I'm gona tell the Liason on you" 
> vs> threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing 
> vs> as usual that it sounded like.
> 
> That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my:
> 
> mw> Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes, 
> mw> but I would urge that any course of action which would 
> mw> cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C 
> mw> (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided.  I 
> mw> suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to 
> mw> the IETF/W3C Liaison group.
> 
> Where is the threat?  I was suggesting that as the IETF and 
> the W3C have a liaison group and as there appear to be 
> disagreements as to how to move forward, the matter be raised 
> at the liaison group.  Is that not what such groups are for?

Misha,

Ignoring, for the moment, several other aspects of your
statement that I, and apparently some others, found upsetting,
liaison or groups like that one are usually constituted to sort
out issues arising between real or official projects of the
relevant groups.  In some cases, they can be, and have been,
used very effectively to sort out issues arising between the
projects or work program of one group and somewhat-related work
program items of the other group.  But, in this case, 

	* We have been assured that there is no W3C project in
	this area.

	* There is also no IETF project in this area: we have no
	mechanisms for having projects outside of the WG process
	and activities for which the IAB or IRTF formally sign
	up (and it is always an open question whether the latter
	two are "IETF projects" or not).

	* And, regardless of the fact that some people are doing
	work in both places, there is no formal liaison between
	the IETF and W3C over language tag issues (and the IETF
	has never recognized "informal liaisons" as having any
	standing).

So, while I'm much in favor of the ability of that particular
coordination group to discuss whatever its members find
interesting, I can't imagine what you think a discussion there
would accomplish in this case.  It has no ability to create IETF
WGs, even though several of its members are IESG members who
might participate in a WG creating process.   Not even the IESG
has the ability to retroactively turn a design team-like
discussion into a WG.  Similarly that group has no authority to
turn this effort into a W3C project with which the IETF would
feel an obligation to coordinate.  And certainly it can't create
a joint standards development activity or overrule the IESG on a
decision about consensus in the _IETF_ community.

So I'm having trouble seeing that suggestion as helpful.

     john

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