Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050829022911.0595eeb0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:53:12 +0200
To: <ietf@ietf.org>, <iesg@iesg.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <009101c5ac2d$6ce6d4a0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050827113513.04327160@pop.online.fr>
	<431090C2.20804@blueyonder.co.uk>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050827201217.0598d250@mail.jefsey.com>
	<4310E7E8.4070408@blueyonder.co.uk>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050828033256.03a3feb0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050828111916.03a41040@mail.jefsey.com>
	<009101c5ac2d$6ce6d4a0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Last Call: language root file size 
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

I am sorry to impose that kind of response - and a large number of 
mails. But this shows the problem to protect an open R&D capacity 
against a chapel, which as some good points. And a non-profit R&D 
against people sharing in a commercial competing consortium.

At 02:05 29/08/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:
> > I started documenting some of the problems resulting from the
> > expected size of the language tag registry and the capacity of the
> > langtag solution to fulfill the WG-ltru Charter. Here are two inputs
> > from the author of the Draft above on the WG-ltru list, Doug Ewell:
> >
> > - "I've already built a hypothetical RFC 3066ter registry.  The
> > changes alone add up to 35,700 lines, or more than 740 pages in RFC
> > format.  It might reopen the question of whether an I-D is the best
> > vehicle for delivering this amount of information to IANA."
>
>Some of you who have not had the joy of witnessing this sort of gross
>misrepresentation on LTRU over the past eight months might be a bit
>confused.
>
>At no time did I ever say, or imply, or MEAN, that the eventual size of
>the registry would be a problem in and of itself, nor that the solution
>developed by the LTRU WG would not fulfill the charter.
>
>What I said, as anyone can see from reading the quote above, is that a
>740-page I-D might be unwieldy enough that the IETF might consider a
>different procedural mechanism for delivering the information to IANA.

Correct.
I do not see the need of all the innuendo above to repeat what I quoted.

> > - "I still have significant concerns about the assumption that ISO
> > 639-6 will be, or should be, automatically integrated into a language
> > tagging scheme. [snip] Meanwhile, the claim that there are "over
> > 20,000 languages" to be tagged is being used as an argument against
> > the current RFC 3066bis effort and the plan to support 7,600 languages
> > in RFC 3066ter."
>
>Since the charter neither refers nor alludes to ISO 639-6, there is no
>conflict with the charter if WG members disagree in regard to the
>*eventual* expansion of the scope of language tags to involve ISO 639-6.

This repeated allusion to the Charter neither refering nor alluding 
to ISO 639-6 is to be compared with the text of the Charter 
(http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html) which says "It is 
also expected to provide mechanisms to support the evolution of the 
underlying ISO standards, in particular ISO 639-3".

This kind of problem may be related to the refusal of the WG to start 
from/analyse the Charter requirments?



>The argument against the RFC 3066bis effort on the basis of the asserted
>existence of "20,000 languages" is attributable to M. Morfin alone.  He
>is not being truthful in saying that he does not oppose the draft; he
>has spent the entire lifetime of the LTRU WG, and before, shouting his
>opposition from the rooftops.
>
> > I fully share the concerns of Doug Ewell.
>
>M. Morfin does not share any concerns with me, except to the extent he
>can twist my words to mean something I do not intend.

I do not know if I share concerns with Doug. I do share the concerns of Doug.

>I hereby disassociate myself with any statements made by M. Morfin
>concerning the drafts produced by the LTRU WG.  I hope that is clear
>enough for IETF members.

Since I said I supported his Draft ....

> > 2. the documented upgrade enlarge the size from 80 K (11.5 K zipped)
> > to 650 K (100 K zipped). This information, updates and additions MUST
> > be available to each of the on-line application of the devices of
> > billions of users. The Draft does not explain how.
>
>The WG decided this was an IANA implementation issue, and out of scope.

Correct. This is exactly what I say.

>Clearly, if some consider it wrong to specify both a registry format and
>a registration procedure within the same draft, it would be that much
>worse to dictate to IANA how it should manage its resources.

This is an interesting idea: because I disagree that a general 
registration procedure is documented in the same document as a 
specific format (but I propose to address the point in considering it 
as the default format) ... I would support the idea to pass to others 
what one does not know to address.

I note that this has been done with much success in the IDNA case.

> > 2. One of the author has _legitimate_ concerns about the capacity of
> > the proposition and the reasonability of the Charter expectation to
> > support the ISO 639-6 evolution of the underlying ISO standards.
>
>Any talk within the LTRU WG regarding ISO 639-6 is just that: talk.

Doug said in another mail "I just think the two figures (7,600 and 
20,000) could be seen as representing a fundamental disagreement." 
This is a legitimate concern at a time a LC is to engage the whole 
IETF in a direction where you think this is unclear. I would not 
qualify that of ust "talk". This is something loyalty calls you to 
say, even if it is to explain why there is no fundamental disagreement.

>There is no charter requirement to support ISO 639-6.  (There *is* a
>charter requirement to begin paving the way for support of ISO 639-3,
>and we have addressed that requirement within the limitation that ISO
>639-3 is still not an approved standard.)

See remark above on the Charter.

NB. As a user, the langtag solution does not provide as much 
possibilities, simplicity, flexibility than solutions using ISO 639-6 
(with the possible use of ISO 639-1/2/3 when necessary. This is IETF not ISO.

> > But he is wrong is in assuming that I use this as an argument against
> > the current RFC 3066bis effort. To the contrary, I use it for a an
> > argument to support the proposed Draft as default solution and
> > support extensions and practical information distribution through
> > other adapted solutions introduced by a singleton.
>
>I invite any interested IETF member to peruse the WG archives, and judge
>for himself whether M. Morfin supports the draft or not.

I have documented enough (too much :-)) during these last days that I 
support (one can read my mails of end of December 2004) the Draft 
with the provision it is not exclusive and serves the Internet 
community rather than exclude its R&D and innovation capacity.

I make no mistery that I proposed or opposed some points, knowing 
that some persons, in particular the authors of the Drafts, would 
oppose them. This permitted to have a very clear/protected ABNF we 
can now use as a default, without risk of pollution from other 
specific sub-formats.

>Since there are no detectable RFC 3683 or 3934 constraints on M.
>Morfin's right to post anything he likes, I expect the usual scathing
>personal attack in response.  (Don't bother sending it to me personally;
>I do have a Blocked Senders list.)

Happily I support my Unicode co-Member Doug's own Draft and I thanked 
him for the work he consciensiously achieved over the months 
maintaining the base he now proposes as a Draft! (even if I doubt a 
740 pages I-D can be of real use in the future).

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf