Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050406055654.03fbe4c0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:06:55 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Language transformation
In-Reply-To: <006f01c53a5b$dc63f360$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <20050331144959.66075.qmail@web42004.mail.yahoo.com>
	<091b01c53614$55a3c850$857e3009@sanjose.ibm.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050331191828.0ca22ad0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<006f01c53a5b$dc63f360$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 05:51 06/04/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>This kind of remark obviously make me react. Whose plan: IETF, IESG, IAB?
>
>Obviously not, since CLDR is a Unicode project.
>http://www.unicode.org/cldr/
>
> > 1. this CLDR plan should be documented in the Draft as per Charter. At
> > least to explain why it is not supported now.
>...
>
>There is no such requirement in the charter.  The charter mentions CLDR as
>one of the users of RFC 3066.

I dont think this is correct. The CLDR is not documented by any RFC. This 
is a copyrighted private project. There are other projects with comparable 
aims and different needs. The needs of the CLDR are parts of the needs 
calling a the BPC 047 review. In not quoting CLDR the current draft implies 
that the CLDR needs are satisfied what puts it ad advantage over other 
projects or projects studies the needs of which are not satisfied.

I fully understand that CLDR IPRs should be respected, the same as other 
projects. But the Internet standard process calls for protected solutions 
to be considered after open ones.
jfc 


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru