Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504115322.03485eb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 12:43:52 +0200
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: regionalisation
In-Reply-To: <013c01c55062$060c1780$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <20050503144512.NPUU17200.mta1.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<013c01c55062$060c1780$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 06:30 04/05/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:
> > 2.  The telephone numbering system is the oldest numbering system
> > routing into Telex and ISO 3166 alpha-2 is the telex code.
>
>I know this has been said before, but ISO 3166 alpha-2 is much more than
>just the telex code by now.  It has been adopted in numerous contexts,
>including (of course) TLDs.  If a previous solution has worked, choose
>it again, right?

This is why we can expect and work on some convergence. Including in the=20
ISO committees. Again IANA is a dormant Member (ICANN holds the site). Ou=
r=20
indications in that area should go to the IANA section for action.

> > ITU and ISO tend to consider it quite stabilized in its principle. It=
s
> > advantage is that it covers everyone down to every individual. It is
> > necessarily related to populations evolution (subscribers) who tend t=
o
> > have a very good knowledge of it. In this it is better than post code=
s
> > (which also are good candidates except the Bristish alphanumeric
> > system and the geography oriented US system [you have many post codes
> > with no population]).
>
>You must be talking about ZIP codes (our term for postal codes) assigned
>to post office boxes, military bases, and major companies.  Those
>certainly do serve a "population" of sorts.  I can't think of any
>residential ZIP codes assigned to empty areas.  Of the 100,000 possible
>five-digit ZIP codes, less than 43% are assigned.

The official term is "postcode". "postal code" is Franglish (mix of "code=
=20
postal" and of "post code"). The fact that you cannot think of something,=
=20
does not prevent it to be effective. I suggest that:
1. access the http://www.upu.int site and document yourself on postcodes=20
(in term of density of population, some ISO 3166 aslo have very low=20
densities, I do not understand the remark).=20
http://www.escapeartist.com/global10/zip.htm may also help you.
2. IRT the US zip codes, I suggest you do not just make a quick google=20
search. The issue is more complex and changing. I have enough worked on=20
them a few years ago to risk that suggestion.

> > The problems you rise come from an equivalent ignorance of E.164 and
> > of ISO 3166 and probably of X.121 at that time, and from a non-networ=
k
> > point of view.
>
>My need at the time was for indexing.  A "network point of view" would
>have been completely irrelevant to that project.

If you found interest in E.164 and ISO 3166, DCCs would probably have=20
helped you.
Anyway today our interest is in a "network point of view" (network-centri=
c)=20
to match the US doctrine. IMHO we should be in a network-user-centric poi=
nt=20
of view.

> > People do not think for the world in ASCII as you do,
><blinks>
>I don't know what brought that on.  Are you suggesting that language
>tags should be localized to other scripts?

Obviously yes.

> > they think for themselves in their own language, with their own needs=
,
> > and their own numbers they know (usually telephone number and post-
> > code, plus whatever universal number anyone could give them they woul=
d
> > really use - experience and studies show that people can collectively
> > remember at least 3 figures, average 5, never more than seven - same
> > for names).
>
>The studies you are thinking of show that people can only remember five
>to seven *random, meaningless* digits or names.  I'm sure that both you
>and I can recall dozens of 10-digit telephone numbers and street
>addresses, and know perhaps hundreds of people by name.  That doesn't
>mean we have superior memory skills; it means we have something to
>connect those numbers and names to.

I am afraid you use to respond fast. Please reread what I wrote.
"collectively
adv : in conjunction with; combined; "Our salaries put together couldn't=20
pay for the damage"; "we couldn`t pay for the damages with all out salari=
es=20
put together" [syn: jointly, conjointly, together, put together]
Source: WordNet =AE 2.0, =A9 2003 Princeton University"


> > This WG has a charter and belongs to the IETF, not to UNICODE nor to
> > W3C.
>
>Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Everyone which does not does not make sure this WG has collectively=20
understood and accepted the Charter.

>Where do you get this about Unicode?

Please read the Charter.

> > The first work is to establish a chronological correspondance table
> > between all these systems. This is needed in different areas.
> > - universal telephone directory (which is to be multilingual)
> > - same about whois and their convergence
> > - some digital protocol with human protocols implications
> > - multilingual internet or multilingual NGN or whatever avatar IETF/
> > ITU and others may come with
> > - CRC and contexts
> > - applications (operating systems: locales, DNS: mlnames, network
> > control/statistics, mails, web, opes/ones, etc.)
>
>This is nice.  Over here, we are working on language tagging.

Precisely. And if this tagging does not match the above needs the Draft=20
will not be accepted. The Draft did not failed two last calls due to poor=
=20
wording on a few points (this can be clarified by the Editor). It has=20
failed because its proposition is not the one applications above (and=20
probably many other ones) expect.

Let discuss the Charter first, after having made sure that all the=20
concerned authoritative parties have been made aware of this WG. I sugges=
t=20
each of us describes his concerns as I just did.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru