Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050311030502.02e64a00@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 04:25:02 +0100
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: status of the ietf-languages mailing list
In-Reply-To: <EE66F81EFE0819AEF0E25F01@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050306051108.030f1500@mail.jefsey.com>
 <p06110404be508f76617c@[10.0.1.2]>
 <6.1.2.0.2.20050306124852.03d6e550@mail.jefsey.com>
 <bfca58a812e87ed8d765a911221f5971@seng.cc>
 <6.1.2.0.2.20050309210401.0336fa50@mail.jefsey.com>
 <Pine.WNT.4.63.0503091651150.2868@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
 <34395.62.252.224.15.1110474611.squirrel@maxproxy4.uk2net.com>
 <EE66F81EFE0819AEF0E25F01@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

On 20:49 10/03/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
>I'm going on holiday soon after the IETF, and staying on holiday until May 
>8 - while I'll be in email contact, I'm not likely to take quick action or 
>participate in much discussion!

Dear Harald,
One of the topic for discussion at the WG-ltru during that period should be 
the status of the ietf-mailing list and the registration to the IANA. I 
will most probably a leader on this. We are a few ccTLD Registry Managers 
concerned

1) The Homographs issue has not helped nor the response of our 
"Singaporian" James. The CENTR, APNIC twin responses have risen concerns 
since the problem is not at ccTLD level. I have a few things to do and I 
will submit a small Draft on the issue for a simple solution which should 
help (has been already accepted for a large deployment). This should help a 
little bit.

2) but the problem remains the lack of relation between IETF and ccTLD/GAC. 
The langtag issue is very touchy and I (and a few others which are of a 
real weight in the real world) will not accept anything silly about word 
processor, typesetters, optical readers, etc etc. langage definition. I 
therefore need your guidance/inputs on some points as the author of RFC 
3066 and as Chair of the list, so I may try to find an acceptable middle 
way when possible.

- I am satisfied with the present RFC 3066. Now, if it is to be changed the 
real problem is to understand what did you mean. Do you wrote this RFC to 
define or to qualify languages? ISO says there is a name of language. A 
list. They want to say the language in this page is that language. If it is 
a non mandatory information I do not think there is much problem. But there 
are so many ambiguities (in the verbs you use and in the explanation given 
by so many). If you define, you define that the text is in a language and 
by consequence you define the language. No one in real world will accept 
that. Comments, Objections, Alternative?

- what they proposed up to now is IMHO acceptable for qualification except 
the name of the requester and the documentation in the form. Because this 
creates a referent and this defines/uses a variety of the language as THE 
languages. IMHO Michael Everson should be satisfied and transfer the OK 
without joining a "proof of concept". Objection? Alternative?

- the charter says "identify" (qualify/define?) the language (I understand 
as the 3 descriptors) and its "complements" (I understand as the 2 
descriptors - referent/style) as in  Word. 3 and qualify, 5 and define are 
OK for me, 3 and define not. Which one do you prefer? Alternatives?

- a real problem is the management of the list as iana.org rerouted to 
alvestrand.no. I sent a mail to Doug Barton who probably copied you. I 
think we will be adamant on this. RFC 3066 (you being the author) says a 
iana.org mailing list. This mailing list is not archived at the IANA, is 
not documented there, one cannot register. Most outside the list/IETF just 
think the list does not exist. I will call, loud and clear, for the list to 
be on IANA hosts, IANA archives and IANA conducted as per the RFC 3066. 
Objections? Alternative?

- if there are other errors like the Chinese and the Greek issues, I 
suppose we will have the GAC stepping into this, the WSIS, the WIPO, 
UNIESCO, ITU, etc. because they are not consulted in their own area. Some 
ccTLDs will then become touchy and active (it is at ccTLD Manager level, 
clibing to Gov). The point will probably be made that this falls into the 
ICANN part of the IANA area. I would not advise having this debate. There 
will already be the compatibility issue between ccTLD IDNs (not to be 
homograph) and the ISO 3166 variations. I will certainly rise the point, as 
a ccTLD or may be others will do, of the independence of IANA IRT ISO 3166 
(MoU ICANN/IANA/IETF). What we will end with will be a GAC demand to review 
and approve the registrations. I certainly support that, but this is heavy. 
I will propose that concerned ccTLDs and Country Reps approve. But the 
position of MINC with Poland shows this is very touchy. Comments? Alternatives?

- the IESG representative. This is a major issue. Michael is probably a 
nice linguist. I hate to be poor with him, but he does not leave me the 
choice. The fault is with you guys: the IESG should never have assigned the 
job to a single person who claims not to be a programer and never relate 
with a programer! My proposition will be that he is replaced by at least 3 
persons (he can be in it) to be approved by a serious selection committee. 
One of them being an engineer. Objection? Alternative?

- the IANA Registrar. Obviously the IANA Registrar will also be discussed. 
I do not know which way yet. The WSIS gives opportunities to the ccTLDs to 
consider possibilities outside the ICANN community. This will also give 
them some negotiation capability. Objections? Suggestions?

3) all this makes the whole registration process as proposed in the Draft 
totally absurd by the delays involved - probably a few years before the 
minimum major languages are registered. 200 or 500 for the whole list. I 
understood your RFC 3066 as the way to avoid registrations except when ISO 
639 had missing languages. My personal position is obviously a language tag 
vocabulary and a semantic, without registration except for the non-ISO or 
not accepted language lists codes, and for special cases. Comments? 
Suggestion? Objections? Alternative?

4) your text has verbose. This verbose tries to explain why one may need 
langtags with many verbs and a few examples. IMHO this wording is 
dangerous. I just need to show it to a Minister Cabinet Member, or a top 
Academic to enroll him. I do not think this is advisable. I will therefore 
ask that the document stays in the Charter wording and removes your 
introduction. Clarifying the meaning of "identifying". Comments? 
Suggestion? Objection?

Thank you for your comments.
If you comment I will certainly pay a great attention to your remarks.
If you don't you will not be able to blame me :-).
Have great vacations!
I wish I could do the same! Staying free has a cost...
jfc