Meta non-discussion (could be ignored)

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>]

> > 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.

And, still, extension to MIME is discussed in 822ext, NOW.

> As such, the notion of debating character set issues in the
> 822EXT Working Group is effectively null and void at this time.

It seems to me that John thinks differently.

> 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.

Then, where is the proper place to discuss MIME?

Again, NOW, extension to MIME is discussed in 822ext. Moreover, most of
them are quite boring to me, but I don't complain about that. So, don't
say "charset" discussion of MIME in 822ext is boring to some. It's unfair.

> > 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.

How can one propose something without knowing what he is proposing?

You can extend MIME outside of 822ext. But extensibility of MIME is
a meta level discussion properly belongs to 822ext.

> 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.

I don't think this ML is the place to make too much detailed discussion
on features of MIME. Especially, what "charset" of MIME means should be
determined by 822ext as it can not be determined by this ML, of course.

> > > 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.

According to the "Subject:", with this thread, we are discussing on the
general policy of this ML.

It is John who raised the improper issue with improper subject. I never
initiate moving.

So, my opinion is that, if John insists on discussing the issue of the
relationship between MIME and 10646, he should move to 822ext.

Here, we should be discussing on character encoding of the Internet in
general shouldn't we?

> Your subsequent indicates that you have some serious
> misunderstandings of both the nature of MIME as well as of the Working Group
> process itself.

You misunderstand IETF, then.

						Masataka Ohta