Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050424113019.035121f0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:26:50 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: BCP 47
In-Reply-To: <426B0C59.3E10@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0B209B3C@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0B209B3C@irvmbxw01.quest.c om>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050423010354.02bc35a0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<42699FA6.CA7@xyzzy.claranet.de>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050423135722.0379e590@mail.jefsey.com>
	<426B0C59.3E10@xyzzy.claranet.de>
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 05:02 24/04/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>BTW, you announced a draft for about mid-April, are you still
>working on it, or have you dropped the idea ?  So far Bruce's
>draft is the only alternative for those who need scripts.  Not
>counting some unpublished 3066-registrations like the MO-stuff.

Dear Frank,
the old internet leaks everywhere, suffering from scalability (this is a 
normal standard growth phase). Working on four matters (CRCs, IPv6 
deployment/routing, Multilingual Internet and WSIS) and operating daily 
registry services shows me the much needed innovative consistency of the 
propositions to make today. This calls for a lot of parallel thinking, work 
and agreements ... and time (only 48 hours a day).

The current Draft is an acceptable beginning for the second kind of 
documents planned by the Charter, addressing the specific needs of XML and 
possibly (undocumented) of CLDR by the people in charge of their 
specifications. I hoped they understood that from Randy's allusion to the 
Charters thorny points still to discuss, but I give up hoping: I sent a 
basic review Addison requested and joked at; I sent a complete review of 
Draft which was supposed to result in questions by Randy and which was just 
partly commented once. All this is obviously good material for an appeal, 
but it would be certainly better to discuss these issues within the WG.

The problem is that IETF is not interested in multilingualism and that most 
of the members of this WG perceive it through the low layer 
internationalisation issues. The first priority would then be to attract in 
this WG all those who will block the Draft during the Last Call.

I certainly prepare a Draft, but I have a practical work load problem as 
the program my working groups are engaged in is large. It plans several 
RFCs for information for Tunis. So, it can only be consistent with three 
other efforts with long texts for me to write in English. I hope I am 
finished with them by the end of the week. The detailed scope of the Draft 
is ready (documented in part in my mail) and some parts completed.

But I continue to think that such a Draft would be unnecessary should Randy 
start a debate on the Charter thorny points, leading to a review of the 
whole language tags framework. But, IMHO, attracting before the future Last 
Call opponents would be advisable.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru