Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese Conversion[version01]

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

James,

If you want some contributor or external body to explain anything, but you
don't want that explaination to be made to, or benefit, this WG, then you
are wasting everyone's time in this WG suggesting someone explain something
to some outside of this WG. If that is what you want, than having such an
explination put into a draft that is subject to the change control of this
WG, or submitted to the IETF's I-D administrator for that purpose, is also
wasting everyone's time in this WG.

Please figure out what it is you want, either in your capacity as co-chair,
or in your capacity as contributor, and say it. At the moment, I'm concerned
enough about what was written in <010801c16fbf$e55fc4e0$2c8498d3@jamessonyvaio> 
to have sent a note to the Chair of the IAB on the subject of External
Liaisons, the subject of section 2.5 (f), of rfc2850.

The "policy and stability considerations" of anything, work product from
the UTC (the subject of Patrick's note), or from the JET (the subject of
your note) are not technical. Their work product, in so far as it is of
any interest to anyone working on independent interoperable implementations
of anything, is. The tables are in-scope, who made them and why isn't, for
this WG.

Incidently, the issue isn't your personality, it is the role of transient
WGs and institutional relationships. I appreciate that the first issue is
something rather higher on your agenda than on mine. It might benefit you
to read the related exchanges between people other than yourself to get a
better idea of the Working Group issue(s), for instance between Patrick and
I, on the same subject.

Eric