RE: Meta non-discussion (could be ignored)

[Ned Freed <NED@INNOSOFT.COM>]

> > 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.

The only discussions going on in the 822EXT Working Group at present are
related to finalizing the base MIME specification, finishing the
richtext/enriched/simpletext specification(s), and (possibly) the
Content-Disposition proposal.

But even if hundreds of extensions were being discussed in the 822EXT Working
Group it would not matter. The point is that the 822EXT Working Group does not
discuss all extensions to MIME. There is no requirement to do so. It doesn't do
so in practice. And once the 822EXT Working Group is gone (which will happen
very soon now) it will be impossible to discuss things there.

> > 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.

I seriously doubt it. John?

> > 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?

There is no "proper place". MIME can be discussed anywhere. Extensions to MIME
can be discussed anywhere. Registrations for new character sets can come from
anywhere. The only new discussions that would be appropriate for 822EXT at this
point would be fundamental changes to the specification. No such changes are
planned as far as I know.

> 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.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the discussion of charsets was
boring. It isn't. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate for new
character set issues to be discussed by the 822EXT Working Group. It isn't.
(You have now heard this from an Application Area Director and from one member
of the Application Area Directorate. This is entirely a procedural matter and
hence well within the purview of the Area Director to decide.)

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

It does not and there are plenty of examples to the contrary.

> > 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.

I disagree. This list is precisely the right place for this discussion. It was
created in order to cover this issue among others, as a matter of fact.

> > 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.

Yes we are. This all started when a proposal was made to move MIME character
set discussions to the 822EXT Working Group.

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

I don't recall who proposed moving the discussion. I assumed it was you since
you seem so opposed to discussing MIME character set matters here.

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

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But I seriously doubt that this
is going to happen.

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

Sure. But this does not preclude discussion of MIME character set usage as
well.

> > 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.

I disagree and I have presented plenty of documentary evidence to back up my
position. You, on the other hand, have only appealed to some esoteric logic
that frankly escapes me.

				Ned