Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050409131859.03dbceb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 14:56:30 +0200
To: ltru@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Question about some draft text.
In-Reply-To: <077001c53cd2$9d1bca10$be733009@sanjose.ibm.com>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0AEF0337@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<077001c53cd2$9d1bca10$be733009@sanjose.ibm.com>
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

On 09:02 09/04/2005, Mark Davis said:
>I agree.
>=E2=80=8EMark

I agree on the modification.

I disagree on:

- the decision by the reviewer to accept. It should be "to refuse",=20
decision being "yes" by default. Otherwise we may have CIOs, we have a=20
complex non documented procedure of relations with ISO (and only the ISO=20
case is quoted), we have no formal complete denial documentation to appea=
l=20
(a new request may result in a new refusal). 15 days are enough for exper=
ts=20
to say "this is inconsistent" or "should be reworded" and to document it =
to=20
the reviewer, and then for the reviewer to document her decision (same=20
work) - could be 15 extra days to issue a statement. Less hassel and=20
maximum delays instead of minimum delays.

- the extra wheight given to the initial registrant. For many practical=20
reasons. First the initial registrant can be dead, what puts some languag=
es=20
in a different positions. Then it gives the registrant some kind of rigt =
on=20
a language what is not acceptable. But mostly it implies that the=20
registration may be not clear enough to everyone to need an additional=20
comment. This is a standardization process, the name and the organization=
=20
of the initial proponent should be forgotten.

   - no single one can "register" a language of many, we should use the=20
term "proponent"
   - the registration should not be deemed to be made by the proponent bu=
t=20
by the ietf-languages@iana.org list.
   - the registered data should be all what is ever needed.

jfc


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>
>To: <ltru@ietf.org>
>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 13:25
>Subject: [Ltru] Question about some draft text.
>
>
> > In the draft there is one sentence that is bothering me. I think JFC
>partially point this out:
> >
> > <t>Updates of registrations follow the same procedure as
> > registrations. The subtag reviewer decides whether to
> > allow a new registrant to update a registration made
> > by someone else; normally objections by the original
> > registrant would carry extra weight in such a decision.</t>
> >
> > This is a holdover from RFC 3066. It suggests that update requests ar=
e not
>subject to the same review. I would like to change this to say:
> >
> > <t>Updates or changes to existing records, including
> > previous registrations, follow the same procedure
> > as new registrations. The Language Subtag Reviewer
> > decides whether there is consensus to update the
> > registration following the two week review period;
> > normally objections by the original registrant will
> > carry extra weight in forming such a consensus.</t>
> >
> >
> > Objections?
> >
> >
> > Addison
> >
> > Addison P. Phillips
> > Globalization Architect, Quest Software
> > http://www.quest.com
> >
> > Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
> > http://www.w3.org/International
> >
> > Internationalization is not a feature.
> > It is an architecture.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
>----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru@lists.ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> >
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru