Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050727075302.03a500b0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:10:59 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Last contribution - was: Action items on
  draft-initial?
In-Reply-To: <001401c5923c$fa9ccbc0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C3F93CF@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<00b401c59213$8c809c80$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050726230551.046f9cd0@mail.afrac.org>
	<001401c5923c$fa9ccbc0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Dear Randy,

At 01:51 27/07/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>I haven't seen any indication that the document's sole editor (Doug) is 
>confused.
>He asked for guidance, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for an editor 
>to do.

I am glad to hear there is only one editor. BTW, would you mean Doug Ewell?

>As for users, page 1 of
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt says:
>
>    This memo defines the initial contents of the Language Subtag
>    Registry for use in forming tags for the identification of languages.
>    Since the contents of this memo only serve as a starting point for
>    the registry, it is inappropriate to use this memo in lieu of the
>    registry.

???
Do you mean that the meaning of entries varies if it is read by someone or 
someone else?

>Consequently, the IANA personnel initializing the registry are really
>the only likely users of this document.  Anyone else using it has gone
>outside its express scope of application, and thus, from my point of
>view, qualifies as "pre-confused".  :-)

Thanks to indicate the contempts for the users. IETF defines who an RFC 
user is. We already had "end users" and now "pre-confused users". When 
"post mortem users"?

>You've raised these issues before.  The rough consensus on how to handle
>each was quite clear.  You may, of course, appeal under the terms of RFC 2026
>section 6.5.1, and request that the AD direct us to discuss your requests 
>further.

Thank you to make this statement. Just get prepared to explain how a few 
participating members make a rough consensus against practice and running 
code. And the hummings on these two points. You may recall that these are 
roughly the two points the preceding version of the Draft failed. And this 
one will also. I do not understand this so big desire of exclusive and 
exclusion to the point to kill your own work. Unless obviously you agree 
with me that this Draf hurts the Internet and want to see it die.

> > I also repeat for clarity sake that the current commercial and Open Source
> > projects or development I know of are based upon:
> >
> > 1. free format of x-tags (tags starting with the "x-" sequence)
> > 2. ISO codes, by nature conforming or intending to conform with ISO 11179
> > (naming, updates, metadata, registry management, etc.)
> > 3. referents and contexts defined by networked languages SDOs.
> > 4. a determination to appeal to IESG, IANA, GAC, WSIS in the case this
> > Draft was accepted as an RFC without the modification above.
> >
> > So, this WG-ltru cannot claim it ignored it, and that it does not purposely
> > oppose users existing or intended practices and running code.
>
>Indeed, your comments have been discussed repeatedly and at excessive
>length.  In some cases, they have resulted in changes or clarifications.  In
>other cases, the WG's consensus has been to do something else.   You may,
>of course, appeal under the terms of RFC 2026 section 6.5.1.

Thank you for this statement. It shows that you repeatedly decided to 
ignore and oppose reality. Thank you to note that in cases my allegded 
excessive length has eventually lead to changes and clarifications.

> > I also want to call a last time on the members of this WG-ltru affinity
> > group. Multilingualism, and Multilingual Internet, due to the positions of
> > UNESCO, UN, WSIS, WGIG, MINC, EU, WIPO, USG, NICSO, etc. many States,
> > cultural authorities, academic work, industry development, ccTLDs policy,
> > local internet communities and ISOC Chapters, and recently Vint Cerf for
> > ICANN, will increasingly be a matter of top consideration. Your intended
> > use of the IANA registry, in the way you propose, without the
> > considerations you refused or did not even discuss, will result into a
> > disinterest by concerned lingual parties. This will also result from its
> > exclusive ASCII basis, and of its deliberate decision of exclusion
> > of  x-tags. It will be considered as a political and commercial bias, and
> > as a technically inadequate proposition. Should the IANA registry be really
> > implemented and promoted, ISO based Open Source and other commercial, civil
> > or public solutions will be made available, some as an open alternative to
> > IANA servers. It would be likely that users would split: you would have
> > dramatically cooperated to the balkanisation of the Internet. You, and the
> > companies you represent, will get the resulting negative exposure: I am not
> > sure this is what you and they want. I still wander why you want so much to
> > harm the Internet, and to oppose their users? I find this sad.
> > jfc
>
>Specific technical comments, especially those proposing specific replacement
>text, are welcome.

I proposed two replacements if you really want to propose that text.
I am sorry we are to keep being opposed.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru