Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050629133313.04702270@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:57:54 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <002501c57c61$44d7ea40$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>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050629004548.04950a60@mail.jefsey.com>
	<002501c57c61$44d7ea40$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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

I am quite glad we cooperate to the outreach of the WG-ltru.

At 06:16 29/06/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > Yes. But we are missing experts in networking, Internet standard proc=
ess,
> > multilingualism, national cultures, LDAP, standard document witing. T=
his is
> > a actually complex issue (mix of lingual subjective and
> > networking/standardisation precise issues).
>
>More untruths.  The working group's members include Harald Alvestrand, a=
nd
>John Klensin, to name a few who know something about the Internet standa=
rd
>process.  I think working group member Kurt Zeilenga is adequately=20
>qualified on
>LDAP issues.  Both of the co-chairs have served as editors of multiple R=
FCs,
>as have several of the WG members.  Some of us also have experience edit=
ing
>ISO and ITU standards, and some members have experience in the W3C or th=
e
>Unicode Consortium, to name just a few.  I suppose WG members like
>James Seng might have something to say on "multilingualism" and "nationa=
l
>cultures" as would both co-chairs (both living in multi-cultural,=20
>multi-lingual
>households), if those discussions were relevant to the mechanics of
>the syntax and registration of tags for the identification of languages.

I did not yet any contribution of the quoted persons. I am glad they=20
joined: their contributions will certainly help the work of the WG. The=20
issue is complex and as important as the creation of the name space or IP=
=20
addressing. It is the naming structure of the Multilingual Global NGN.

Opposition is between the vision of an "application/author" oriented=20
W3C/Unicode affinity group, focusing on the writing of a document, and th=
e=20
experimentation effort I represent which is interested in its multiple=20
"networked usage" architecture. This is "what for" question the Draft doe=
s=20
not document yet (Martin D=FCerst just introduced an interesting suggesti=
on=20
to permit that: if the scope of the Draft is clearly defined, what is not=
=20
addressed if not blocked, but reserved for further study. This idea is a=20
good idea which should probably investigated in other cases).

The problem is the same as in the HBH case (Harald was right to quote it =
in=20
unwillingly supporting Dr. Roberts). We are in a gigantic change period f=
or=20
the Internet, from an architecture which started with four machines to a=20
global multi-everything architecture. It is normal that tensions exist.=20
What is not normal is that they result in ad hominems and in stubborn=20
denials of dialog and cooperation (usually a demonstration of weakness:=20
this is not good, we are not here to oppose but to build together - but i=
t=20
has to make sense).

Dr. Roberts, myself and many others, starting with ICANN (ICP-3 document)=
,=20
call for the need to experiment and not to be blocked by outdated legacie=
s.=20
Others try to oppose for many good (stability, experience, etc.) and less=
=20
good reasons (I know better, this is the way it is). John Klensin started=
=20
discussing that well. The good reasons of both sides must be considered,=20
the poor ones filtered out. In the case of RFC 3066 Harald introduced a=20
possibility which should be present everywhere, and which has been quoted=
=20
here: "x-tags" are for free private use. This permits experimentation and=
=20
specialised applications. (Except that to comply with some possible old=20
experimentations the free, private x-tags should be restricted to 8=20
hexatridecimals :-) !!!). HBH would be up and running/faling, no one=20
knowing it, no one being hurt, no one having wasted time.

-->

The list of WG-ltru "angels" Randy quoted, shows the interest of the=20
WG-ltru. If John Klensin, Harald Alvestrand, Kurt Zeilenga and James Seng=
,=20
etc. contribute, with  Randy and Martin D=FCerst as co-chairs, contributo=
rs=20
of same stature will certainly have the occasion of interesting exchanges.

> > >The ltru WG consensus was to not delay our work in order to align wi=
th 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] i=
s also
> > expected to provide mechanisms to support the evolution of the underl=
ying
> > ISO standards". The ISO 639-6 and ISO 639-4 persons (present on the l=
ist)
> > explained these two standards will comply with ISO 11179. ISO 639-4 d=
efines
> > the guidelines for all the language standards used by the WG. This
> > consensus therefore opposes the charter (but if the Draft does not wa=
nt to
> > be BCP 47, this is IMHO acceptable, but must be discussed).
>...
>
>Providing support for the evolution of the underlying standards does not
>require conformance (whatever that might mean)

con=B7for=B7mance    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kn-f=F4rmns)
n.
Conformity.

Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Four=
th=20
Edition
Copyright =A9 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

>to ISO 11179, any more than it means we should use the same word process=
or=20
>used to edit the ISO documents.

Non-Members should understand that when Randy refers to the script,=20
language and country parameters of the word processor being used. This=20
calls for two comments:

1. the word processor also uses two other parameters: the referent of the=
=20
used language (ex. dictionary) and the context in which it is used (ex.=20
style) as everyone using Word for example can check. The current RFC 3066=
=20
langtags are informal and open. They can accommodate much flexibility. Th=
e=20
RFC 3066 bis langtags are structured and rigid: in refusing to include th=
e=20
referent and the context they become totally out of scope.. Like if you=20
were prevented to tell the vegetable and the dressing when ordering a McD=
o=20
cold salad.

2. ISO 639 -1 and -2 have been defined before their experience (and many=20
other standards) lead to the ISO 11179 convergence work. ISO 639-4 wants=20
the ISO 639 to conform to ISO 11179, so ISO 639-3 will (what has low=20
impact) and ISO 639-6 will extend that. The impact is that the proposed=20
Internet langtags will conflict with the ISO langtags, the way they are=20
going to be used in Industry, marketing, consumer goods, networking,=20
international documents and standards, administration and immigration,=20
UNESCO, WTO, WIPO, etc. etc. outside of the XML pages respecting the=20
currently proposed Draft. Introducing confusion and loss of credibility a=
nd=20
delays for the IETF.

Where the issue is quite worrying is that all this could root into
- the protection of a vision of the locales management (named CLDR) by th=
e=20
Members of the Unicode consortium
- against a generalised ISO 11179 lingual model including the locale, the=
=20
multimedia convergence, the multimode aspects (writing is a seldom used w=
ay=20
to use language, when compared to others).

No more than for HBH I think IETF should support one technical approach=20
against another. And if it does it should not be by acrimony and harassme=
nt.

jfc












_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf