Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050629004548.04950a60@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:11:43 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <011a01c57c1f$5224c8e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <200506271728.j5RHSOK4010945@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
	<22563.1119937030@munnari.OZ.AU>
	<E4B87F0214DF2516CD2A4C7F@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
	<5F1B6D95C0DBE599ACBA1A9F@scan.jck.com>
	<1452A05293A1AAB40A2E4A62@gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050628153555.03eb3eb0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<011a01c57c1f$5224c8e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment
 of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

This is a beautifull troll :-) However the good of the WG-ltru work calls 
for short comments where we will probably partly agree.

At 22:23 28/06/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > The review of  the management of the IANA langtag registry is subject to
> > the work of the WG-ltru. http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
>
>Thank you for the advertisement.  We are very close to WG last call, so
>I urge those interested to join now.

Yes! This is really an important issue. Not usual IEFT but important.

>There are more than two WG participants whose first language is not English.

True. I should have said as regular contributors. We need more.

>Some members are linguists by training, and the WG includes experts in 
>internationalization.

Yes. But we are missing experts in networking, Internet standard process, 
multilingualism, national cultures, LDAP, standard document witing. This is 
a actually complex issue (mix of lingual subjective and 
networking/standardisation precise issues).

> > The consistency with ISO 11179 (Registries continuity) and the work IETF
> > should carry in that area, is precisely what would prevent cases like the
> > HBH case and determine how such parameters should be recorded and where.
>...
>
>The ltru WG consensus was to not delay our work in order to align with ISO 
>11179.

This is unfortunately a self-evaluation of the WG  current consensus 
process  ... I say this because the WG charter says "[the Dratf/WG] is also 
expected to provide mechanisms to support the evolution of the underlying 
ISO standards". The ISO 639-6 and ISO 639-4 persons (present on the list) 
explained these two standards will comply with ISO 11179. ISO 639-4 defines 
the guidelines for all the language standards used by the WG. This 
consensus therefore opposes the charter (but if the Draft does not want to 
be BCP 47, this is IMHO acceptable, but must be discussed).

Anyway I understand the concern as ISO 11179 is a "big" thing. It is also 
key element of the future. And certainly the key of the evolution of RFC 
2434 if to stay compatible with the global convergence. Interesting to 
share here. Beware: ISO 11179 is not finished and already an heavy 
document. IETF should work on its network/multilingual simplification.

jfc







_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf