Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050805142549.04ca76d0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:31:14 +0200
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
In-Reply-To: <20785174.1123229031189.JavaMail.root@wamui-bichon.atl.sa.e
	arthlink.net>
References: <20785174.1123229031189.JavaMail.root@wamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] ISO 11173 (non) alignment in main draft
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Randy,
I read your comment. So, I will rephrase my text to express what a reader 
will expect from the text due to the involvement of ISO standards, directly 
or indirectly subject to ISO 11173 (at least via ISO 639-4). UN has no 
position I know of about ISO 11173, but the day they align, every developer 
will expect by way of consequences that IANA registries based upon and ISO 
and UN codes also aligns. ISO 11173 procedures and related libraries will 
naturally be expected to work.

You can chose between the two following texts. I obviously favor (b), but I 
am neutral about ISO 11173 support in the context of the Draft I globally 
disapprove . But I am not neutral about confusion: when you decide 
something you should document it. I have no doubt that IESG will adopt the 
same position. An RFC is a document to help developers and to support a 
consistent common compatibility.

Proposed choice (or anyone can better the texts if respecting their 
intent). The target is clarity.

(a) "Even if the registry documented in this memo relates in part to ISO 
codes it is not aligned on ISO 11173 provisions."

(b) "The registry documented in this memo relates in part to ISO codes and 
SHOULD respect their alignment on ISO 11173 provisions as they develop."

NB. The open source libraries we will eventually develop, test and produce 
will support both "0-" escape sequence and ISO 11173 support. They will 
obviously also be restricted (probably as an alternative version for 
simpler use) to the specifications of this Draft, the day it is implemented 
- if this happens - to support every users (we do not compete against 
anyone as others do, we just strive to best serve all the users).  We may 
very well then be in a limbo situation regarding ISO 11173 if (a) or (b) is 
not included, and if ISO 11173 leads to contradictions (please remember 
that ISO 11173 has not yet worked on the multilingual and on the networking 
issues). That day we could put a disclaimer indicating we rose the question 
at the WG and were opposed.

This may be also handled in the Security section, considering that ISO 
11173 (no) conformance would be a danger of confusion? But it would be a 
strange place for such a concern.

jfc





At 10:03 05/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>As a technical contributor, I believe there is no technical need for the
>proposed addition.  further, I believe that the proposed text is technically
>incorrect: the initial registry document does NOT "establish" the registry.
>
>"This document establishes an independent registry. This registry is not
>intended to be related to any registry, database or content not documented
>in this document."
>
>I suppose this is what you want to say.
>jfc
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru