Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

At 10:27 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>Again, I was commenting exclusively on the tactic of trying to
>cut off discussion by making over-broad assertions about what
>the IETF does or does not permit groups to do, what charters
>prohibit,

Over-broad?  OK.  Then consider responding to the specifics I provided.


>  etc.   I mentioned the keyword BOF because there
>seemed to be to be a pattern and it illustrated the pattern.

"Pattern?" Do you mean the pattern of your objecting when you do not agree 
with a citation of IETF practise?

Alas, John, in the IETF the plebeians are allowed to know and contribute to 
management discussions.  Some of us even have quite a bit of experience 
writing IETF process specifications, being area directors, and/or chairing 
working groups.  Consequently, quite a few of us know quite a bit about 
IETF practise.  And we are allowed to cite that knowledge.  (Feel free to 
cite rules to the contrary.)


>   But the formal
>determination of relevance is a WG Chair or AD problem.

Formal determination?  Glad you included the word formal.  Your objection 
was not to my making a formal determination, since I did not make a formal 
determination.

So we are left with your again citing a point that is not relevant.


> > As long as we are beating dead horses, let me reiterate that
> > things that are reasonable in the early stages of a working
> > group are not reasonable in the late stages,
>
>If a WG is converging smoothly, I agree.

Even if it is converging roughly.  That is, after all, the other meaning of 
rough consensus.


>    And I would argue
>that rehashing old issues is inappropriate two months into a
>working group and certainly no more appropriate two years in.

Ahh, so you agree with that aspect of my concern, too.  This is making is 
increasingly difficult to figure out what you are objecting to.


>On the other hand, if there were the slightly shred of really
>new and significant information that might impact the content or
>evaluation of appropriateness of an evolving standards-track
>effort,
>     And, no, I haven't seen any discussion or arguments
>I would have interpreted as either new or significant
>information (much less both) since before the WG Last Call
>concluded.

Please forgive my continued confusion about your points.  How is citing 
this one relevant here?


> > And I will repeat my query as to how this thread shows any
> > actual or possible relevance to the protocol specification
> > work of this group.  Not theoretical, John. Actual.
>
>I don't believe there is any.

So we have just had a pleasant bit of jousting over a point that you 
acknowledge is irrelevant to the thread in question.

In the midst of an important standards effort that carries enough of its 
own baggage and noise, what is the possible benefit of your adding to them, 
John.


>But, in my opinion, your assertions about topics that can be
>discussed or not discussed on the basis of charters and real or
>imagined IETF procedures

Perhaps you have not noticed that responding to the content of these 
persistent lobbyists has had no effect on their repeated efforts?

At such times, turning to prohibition is the usual management practise, in 
the IETF and elsewhere.  Citing the working group charter is also the usual 
IETF management practise.

The only thing that is peculiar is your choosing to object to these facts.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850