[Ltru] Suspending J.F.C. Morfin

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

Jefsey has once again become too disruptive, engaging
in personal attacks, misrepresenting the positions of others,
revisiting long-resolved issues, and generally impeding timely
completion of our assigned task by causing other WG members
to waste time.

Pursuant to RFC 3934, I am suspending the posting
privileges of his subscribed addresses to the ltru WG
mailing list, for a period of up to 30 days. His posting
privileges will be restored no later than August third, 2005.

Randy, ltru co-chair

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "r&d afrac" <rd at afrac.org>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 1:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: IANA ISO 3166 related Registries
>
> At 07:11 04/07/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
> >r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote:
> >
> > > Addison describes his intent to rule the future. No objection to that,
> > > except he also wants to rule the net.(BCP 47)
> >
> >I am amazed and bewildered that this sort of personal abuse is allowed
> >to continue, month after month.  It makes me not want to participate any
> >more.
>
> Which abuse ???? Your mail is either hurting without reason or a troll? Or
> it may also be that you are not familiar with the Internet architecture and
> with the Internet standard process? In that case:
>
> - Addison describes his plan which is to make what he calls RFC 3066
> bis/ter to more and more define a grammar, semantic, etc. So every version
> stays compatible with the previous one (but not the previous one with the
> new one). This has the advantage to get at the end of the day a very
> strict, may be clear (if there are not too many complexity to address the
> legacy of the previous RFCs), an probably stable system. I have no problem
> with this, except that I do not understand its use. But Addison says he
> needs it.
>
> - the problem is that he also wants to make his draft to replace RFC 3066,
> what will make it  ipso-facto the new BCP 47. BCP 47 is the current rule of
> the net in matter of languages.
>
> I do not see what can be abusive and personal in this??? This problem is
> the _only_ real problem of this Draft. It was documented at length by John
> Klensin, Dave Crocker and others during the last Last Call and will make
> the next Last Call fail.
>
> This lack of understanding of the Internet standard process by W3C people
> can be easily shown. You go on Google and look for "W3C RFC 3066" (and
> RFC3066): there are 14,950 responses. If you enter the same "W3C BCP 47",
> you get 675 responses (0.5%). This means that people refer to the
> non-canonical version of what they want to say, and that they will have to
> update all of them if the Draft is approved. Would they have understood the
> Internet standard process document management system, they would have most
> probably used BCP as a BCP can be updated, not an RFC, and is therefore
> canonical.
>
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru




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