Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704101614.04a3e0c0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:29:22 +0200
To: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Referencing the Scheme within the Tag
In-Reply-To: <200507040647.j646l9iT015837@smtp-los01.proxy.aol.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704022458.05a300e0@mail.afrac.org>
	<200507040647.j646l9iT015837@smtp-los01.proxy.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 08:47 04/07/2005, Debbie Garside wrote:
>Hi Jefsey
>I do not wish to add more information into the tag.  I just want to
>reference the scheme.  The fact that the scheme MAY be updated in the future
>to include additional information is part of the reason for requiring the
>reference.

Debbie,
RFC 3066 is used in a lot of places and the Draft "narrowing" changes its 
nature. It is likely that this new nature will not always be accepted, all 
the more in the new IANA context. This means that we will have several 
coexisting schemes as both the narrowing and the needs will increase. The 
result will probably be complex semantic (look at the added complexity by 
this fist narrowing level, after 18 versions: even the target is to make 
RFC 3066 ter as simple as they wanted RFC 3066 bis to be). There will be at 
least three coexisting schemes. This is why it seems much more promising to 
work on a private generalised x-tags open space along with an ISO 11179 
approach, where all this issues will have to be addressed in the context of 
the present state of the art, without having to rebuild the wheel.

The only fear I have is that ISO 11179 is complex and may very well be 
another X.500 story. This is why I wish to keep the multilingualism and the 
networking aspects under other fora (including IETF) control. So if an 
Internet vision had to emerge (like for LDAP) we could make it more easily. 
Designing it in the context of this WG could be possible (it was my request 
to ADs when I called for a WG-TAGS) but would call for far more people to 
assemble. I called for that on the IETF main list, but the chair opposed we 
had some of them on the list (but never heard about).

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru