Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org>
Received: from murder ([unix socket])
	 by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Cyrus v2.2.8-Mandrake-RPM-2.2.8-4.2.101mdk) with LMTPA;
	 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:00:30 +0200
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE6761B75
	for <harald@alvestrand.no>; Mon,  4 Jul 2005 17:00:30 +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 01032-09 for <harald@alvestrand.no>;
 Mon,  4 Jul 2005 17:00:26 +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 A5BA361AFD
	for <harald@alvestrand.no>; Mon,  4 Jul 2005 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1DpSOT-0001ld-CP; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:57:57 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpSOS-0001lX-9m
	for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:57:56 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26949
	for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:57:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpSp2-00019P-Uy
	for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:25:25 -0400
Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24]
	helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DpSOM-0005yJ-88; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 07:57:50 -0700
Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704094915.04952d80@mail.afrac.org>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:15:15 +0200
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: IANA ISO 3166 related Registries
In-Reply-To: <003c01c58056$dae65c80$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <20050704023055.JYPG21785.mta5.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<003c01c58056$dae65c80$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
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 - afrac.org
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: ltru@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list
	<ltru.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:ltru-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:ltru-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at alvestrand.no

At 07:11 04/07/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote:
>
> > Addison describes his intent to rule the future. No objection to that,
> > except he also wants to rule the net.(BCP 47)
>
>I am amazed and bewildered that this sort of personal abuse is allowed
>to continue, month after month.  It makes me not want to participate any
>more.

Which abuse ???? Your mail is either hurting without reason or a troll? Or 
it may also be that you are not familiar with the Internet architecture and 
with the Internet standard process? In that case:

- Addison describes his plan which is to make what he calls RFC 3066 
bis/ter to more and more define a grammar, semantic, etc. So every version 
stays compatible with the previous one (but not the previous one with the 
new one). This has the advantage to get at the end of the day a very 
strict, may be clear (if there are not too many complexity to address the 
legacy of the previous RFCs), an probably stable system. I have no problem 
with this, except that I do not understand its use. But Addison says he 
needs it.

- the problem is that he also wants to make his draft to replace RFC 3066, 
what will make it  ipso-facto the new BCP 47. BCP 47 is the current rule of 
the net in matter of languages.

I do not see what can be abusive and personal in this??? This problem is 
the _only_ real problem of this Draft. It was documented at length by John 
Klensin, Dave Crocker and others during the last Last Call and will make 
the next Last Call fail.

This lack of understanding of the Internet standard process by W3C people 
can be easily shown. You go on Google and look for "W3C RFC 3066" (and 
RFC3066): there are 14,950 responses. If you enter the same "W3C BCP 47", 
you get 675 responses (0.5%). This means that people refer to the 
non-canonical version of what they want to say, and that they will have to 
update all of them if the Draft is approved. Would they have understood the 
Internet standard process document management system, they would have most 
probably used BCP as a BCP can be updated, not an RFC, and is therefore 
canonical.

jfc






_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru