Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050314120015.03fe3cf0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:59:12 +0100
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] "Obsolete" region subtags (was: Re: Update to 
	proposed registry)
In-Reply-To: <006201c52843$6b79ee40$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <20050314001938.PAYD5424.mta6.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<002701c52833$a99cdd00$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050314024326.03f4fd20@mail.jefsey.com>
	<006201c52843$6b79ee40$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
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 04:10 14/03/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:
>I don't really care what ICANN does.

Such a lack of care is not appropriate to the current debate.

IANA is to conform to the requirements of this WG only pursuing to the 
terms of the ICANN, IETF, IANA MoU (RFC 2860). For a given period of time, 
ICANN and IANA present the IANA as an ICANN function, so ICANN is actually 
implied twice. This WG Charter does not include a rewrite of this MoU so we 
have to care about what ICANN does, if only to make sure there is no problem.

I call your attention on the part 4 of this MoU and on the possibility of 
ICANN to be confronted to a conflicting position paper or for its BoD to 
take a position on this issue. The last thing this WG should want is to 
face a latter change in the understanding of one of the three used tables.

I note that my position is exactly described in your "And I'm convinced 
that normal Internet users will try to use their ccTLD in language tags no 
matter what RfC 3066bis says. Why not sanction this expected behavior 
instead of trying to forbid it ?".

>If the ccTLD table "documents the ICANN understanding of ISO 3166," their 
>understanding obviously leaves something to be desired.  They have ccTLDs 
>corresponding to the non-ISO 3166 codes AC, GG, IM, and JE, and they think 
>the code for United Kingdom is UK instead of GB.

As you may know, ICANN is advised by the GAC which gathers the documented 
entities (States).  If you notice a discrepancy with ISO 3166 which is also 
sponsored by the same States, I suggest you bring the problem where it 
really belongs: to the UN General Assembly. This is precisely because a 
certain number of problems of same level have been identified that 192 
chiefs of States and States delegations have unanimously voted that a 
report on these issues be presented to the General Secretary. This process 
is currently underway through the WGIG and everyone can contribute.

I think this concern is of real importance and justifies a report. I planed 
to prepare it through a workshop I organize on this issue in June (during 
the EUGENI meeting where most of the concerned organizations and committees 
representatives will be present) after a preparation process which I 
started at the Paris ISO meeting in August.

- I have no problem to invite you (or any other one from the ltru list) 
among my guest speakers (one slot on the 3 or 4 planned slots).
- we can certainly send an earlier letter to Mr. Khummer and to the WGIG to 
call their attention on the issue.

> > But the WG-ltru is not the one in control or a second, linguistic,
> > IANA version of ISO 3166 is to be created?
>
>I have no idea what is being asked here.

Exactly what you say: "the differences are limited to a few odd cases.  And 
we're talking about a future IANA registry here, they already have a 
registry for ccTLDs based on ISO 3166.  I trust that IANA gets it right no 
matter what ISO 3166 does".

This WG can propose a second IANA reading of the ISO 3166.
- one by ICANN as part of its reserved name/numbering area
- one by no-one yet defined to be maintained for the W3C languages needs

But we have to be aware that would probably open the way to other lists 
better satisfying other needs. This conflicts with the RFC 1958 suggestion 
to strive for one single commonly used solution when possible.

> > Another point to consider. An IETF WG is charter oriented. When the
> > Charter is completed, it is closed. My understanding is that the IESG
> > has approved this WG for two tasks and a short duration. It can
> > obviously be renewed. But I think we should not assumed it to be
> > permanent - at least at this stage and without a proper guidance from
> > the IESG.
>
>I don't think anyone imagines this WG to be permanent.

Glad you agree.

>Both the charter and the crrent draft explain that the review function for 
>new subtags will lie with the ietf-languages list and with the Language 
>Subtag Reviewer.

The ietf-languages@iana.org is chartered to review language tags, not to 
review the IANA understanding of ISO tables. This is why I asked for a 
permanent WG-Tags, tagging is not a need limited to languages and just now. 
But better to start with something.

jfc
=====================================================
For your convenience:
Draft: 		http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-00.txt
Charter: 	http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
gmane: 	http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru
If you were Bcced for information and not familliar with the IETF process:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3669.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-taobis-02.txt
=====================================================
Jon Postel (RFC 1591): "The IANA is not in the business of deciding
what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list
  as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with
  the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which
entities should be and should not be on that list."
=====================================================
Brian Carpenter (RFC 1958/3.2): "If there are several ways of doing the
same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context
or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the
same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to.
Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as
possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements."
=====================================================
It seems that what works for countries and ISO 3166 since 1978 should
apply to languages and to ISO 693.
=====================================================


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru