Return-Path: Received: from murder ([unix socket]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Cyrus v2.2.8-Mandrake-RPM-2.2.8-4.2.101mdk) with LMTPA; Mon, 02 May 2005 13:58:26 +0200 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695BB61AF3 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 13:58:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31713-04 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 13:58:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.4.8 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF6561AF1 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 13:58:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DSZQC-0006Ig-NT; Mon, 02 May 2005 07:49:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DSQGv-0005Ea-Aq for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 01 May 2005 22:02:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01377 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 22:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DSQUV-00073F-TM for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 May 2005 22:17:00 -0400 Received: from lns-p19-19-idf-82-254-255-93.adsl.proxad.net ([82.254.255.93] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1DSQGt-0003Yd-O1 for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 May 2005 19:02:56 -0700 Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050502033918.0573bd60@mail.jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 04:02:52 +0200 To: ltru@ietf.org From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Cc: Subject: [Ltru] regionalisation X-BeenThere: ltru@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at alvestrand.no For information I engage a project which calls for a certain convergence of E.164 and ISO 3166. I will need to know the main script and language for a given telephone exchange (on-line telephone directory). I note that IETF is engaged in utilising ISO 3166 alpha-2 codes - with the problems Franck rises - only because at the beginning we needed to build names and chose ISO 3166 alpha-3 first, and pasted alpha-2 for refilers when connecting the ARPA Internet. We were also using X.121 but IETF was never concerned due to the slowliness of IPv6 (however the DoD wrote an RFC on the matter). Anyway X.121 uses nationwide DCC - (Data Country Codes) as does ISO 3166. Internet is a network communication tool and ITU is more appropriate for the defining the regionalisation standard of a network than ISO and UN. Actually E.163 and area codes are probably more precise for what we want to document than ISO 3166 even ISO 3166-2 which is only a list, while the telephone directory is usually hierarchical and very local. We obviously have a problem of stability. I tend to think E.164 is by nature more stable than ISO 3166 and it is all numeric. Main area codes stability is actually to consider: a part from adjustments like in the US due to the scarcity of number in some zones, or the reorganisation of the French system adding a regional layer, I tend to think it is more stable than ISO-3166-2 which keeps fixed location, while area code and exchanges tend to follow the population (what interests us in term of language). Has someone considered the inputs from the WG-Geopriv? jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru