RE: General policy

[Ned Freed <NED@INNOSOFT.COM>]

> According to its charter, 822ext is responsible for the extention it
> proposed. If the discussion of the extension of 822 can not be continued
> in 822ext, or people in 822ext does not have enough knowledge or
> interest on the extension, the proposed extension should be removed
> from the current standard. PERIOD.

I'm sorry, but I could not let this pass: all this is absolutely and totally
incorrect. The 822EXT Working Group was chartered to produce MIME and has done
so. This effort is now almost complete and as such the 822EXT Working Group is
drawing to a close. As such, the notion of debating character set issues in the
822EXT Working Group is effectively null and void at this time.

But MIME is designed to be extensible. It has never been the intention that all
extensions to MIME be handled by the 822EXT Working Group. This just isn't how
Working Groups in the IETF operate. Moreover, there is ample evidence for this
position: the MIME-MHS, NETFAX, ACK, and PEM Working Groups have all produced
or are in the process of producing significant extensions to MIME. Other
Working Groups will undoubtedly do the same. Defining and registering character
sets does not differ materially from registering a new content type. It is a
reasonable thing to do, and there are at least five documents now in draft that
either define or clarify the definition of some character set for MIME use.
None of these documents are scheduled for review by the 822EXT Working Group as
far as I know.

In fact there is no explicit requirement that extensions to MIME be discussed
by ANY Working Group whatsoever. A bunch of MIME-related stuff has already
been registered entirely outside of the auspices of any Working Group.

Any statement that an extension to MIME has to be reviewed and discussed by the
822EXT Working Group to be valid is therefore entirely erroneous.

> May I interprete your comment that IESG is now considering to remove
> "charset" specification from MIME because 822ext proposed things they
> can't discuss.

John's comment was perfectly clear. What is not clear is your presumption that
failure to review some aspect of MIME extensibility should result in that
aspect's removal from the standard.

> Or do you think "charset" is so holy that discussion on it is forbidden
> by IESG?

John never said *anything* about not discussing these issues. The issue is
*where* they get discussed. John said that this is the place for such
discussions, not the 822EXT Working Group.

> ...

> > This is a mangement issue, not an issue of policy or theory, and has nothing
> > to do with the outcome.

> Could you be more productive to concentrate on policy or theory?

Oh please. I believe you were the one who suggested moving this discussion to
the 822EXT Working Group. John simply responded and said that such a move is
not appropriate. Your subsequent indicates that you have some serious
misunderstandings of both the nature of MIME as well as of the Working Group
process itself.

				Ned