Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050414114602.043f93a0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:50:32 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: registry should copy non-English fields from
	ISO documents
In-Reply-To: <425DCEF5.74E4@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <20050413142051.UDNA2128.mta1.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<003101c5403d$1e0bce00$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050414004401.02df77d0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<425DCEF5.74E4@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ltru Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 04:01 14/04/2005, Frank Ellermann said:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>
> > supported (a) by what seems to  be an extended anglo-saxon
> > culture group, (b) by a non-extended-anglo-saxon culture.
>
>Ground control to major Jefsey, are you talking about Randy's
>5.49 : 3.51 decision ?  None of these nine people represents
>any culture, they just have different _technical_ reasons to
>want more or less info in the registry.  Among these reasons
>are the size of the registry, the problems for the tag review
>procedure, the "ugliness" of too many NCRs in the registry,
>and the bogosity of adding F=E9ro=E9 to Faroe if the real (native)
>name is F=F8royar (maybe).

Dear Frank,
we obviously are not here for the fun. But for the technical, political,=20
economical and societal implications every IETF standard and procedure ha=
s.=20
IETF has made the choice of having no market study/review prior its=20
publications and to wait for the market inputs before making an RFC a=20
standard. This has lead some technical, political, economical and societa=
l=20
interests to join the IETF to use its RFC mechanism to try to influence t=
he=20
market in its favor. This is precisely right now under debate on the main=
=20
list between the Chair and Members from various types of organizations -=20
including non-profits like me - and individual dedicated voluntaries like=
=20
you (from what you explained). This creates a problem between people who=20
are paid and have time and people who pay and have far less.

The diversity of their cultures and interests is precisely what permits t=
he=20
IETF to propose valuable documents and acknowledge de facto standard=20
resulting from these documents. There are cases where the same need is=20
addressed by different solutions due to the impossibility to find a commo=
n=20
background between two positions.

I think we have fully demonstrated that in this case. As you indicate the=
re=20
are 9 persons on side, attracting no more (*). There is one opponent=20
because no one in the real world seem to accept that what these nine=20
people  propose makes enough sense to worry about. Let get real, if I am=20
the only opponent here it is because I probably am the only opponent who=20
instead of shrugging shoulders, acknowledge the real need expressed by Ad=
dison.

(*) we could obviously call upon number like in the MARID case. What woul=
d=20
be the interest?

We could also evaluate who is for that among paid and paying members=20
communities. This is usually a good way to evaluate what is of medium and=
=20
what is of long range interest to the users. Commercial interest run mark=
et=20
studies and if they are big enough will impact the market anyway. NonCom=20
have usually the liberty of the vision and the determination which "makes=
=20
it happen". They have not the immediate time - but they have the long ter=
m=20
time.

In this case we have two opposed interests. People wanting to patch XML,=20
proceed with CLDR like plans, possibly sell their work and expertise=20
through ISO and similar channels. These are good and legitimate interests=
.=20
But they conflict - and will not defeat - with the fact that a Multilinga=
l=20
Internet is not an "Internationalized confusion" but based  needs to be=20
based upon a clear, stable, user acceptable/ed, network architecture=20
integrated identification of the languages parameters. As long as they wa=
nt=20
to lead the game, instead of serving it because they are as every other=20
frustrated by the (partly voluntary) lack of understanding of IESG/IETF,=20
they will not go through and are wasting time for their totally legitimat=
e=20
need.

IRT the practicalities you talk about, you should consider them in the=20
broader perspective of true relation assistance services (or extended=20
services) and economy. But this is another internet architectural aspect,=
=20
parallel in need and similar to multilingualism (cf. OPES which, IMHO, ar=
e=20
mudded by the problem as this WG).
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru