Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050314130922.0317a8e0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:39:41 +0100
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Working Group submission: LTRU Registry Draft 00
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20050314095058.0807f9d0@localhost>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0A924C02@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050314000816.03fd0530@mail.jefsey.com>
	<6.0.0.20.2.20050314095058.0807f9d0@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 02:15 14/03/2005, Martin Duerst wrote:
>Hello Jefsey,
>
>At 09:17 05/03/14, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>
> >I have asked guidance to several concerned parties to present a comment 
> synthesis (I give time for responses - or for no-response freeing me). I 
> also asked guidance to some WG-IDN members and other ccTLDs which could 
> be of help towards a ccTLD BP IRT concerning the Unicode updates impact 
> on IDNs.
>
>Please note that the IETF, and this WG, is an organization consisting
>of individuals. Any comment is welcome, but it is best if concerned
>individuals send these comments directly to our mailing list (and if
>they are concerned, of course the best thing to do is to become
>a member of the WG, which is open to any interested individual),
>rather than somebody trying to consolidate comments from various people.

Full agreement. But it is not my decision if my members, other organization 
or SG chairs, governement representatives, etc. want or do not want to 
participate to this WG. You will note that the signature I adopted is an 
incitation to do so. But this recognition/exposure process should be a 
common work and attitude.

But there are different objections such as:
- I am their rep for that. They do not necessarily want to bear the ad 
hominem I must support.
- they do not know IETF and the workload is too heavy. Most say "no to", 
"yes to". They are not interested in details.
- the language divide
- some cultural visions (economical, political, societal...) would be 
disruptive in this process and are not advisable.
- many think ISO, ITU, MINC, ETSI, etc. are better suited for the task. The 
IAB documented (RFC 3869) its lack of interest in multilingualism. The IESG 
Charter is perceived as not adequate. W3C is not an open body. IETF has ne 
feed back from market. etc. etc. These are real world oppositions we have 
to live with. At the end of the day they will make the decision through 
usage. If it is against the IETF proposed solution, IETF will only have 
introduced confusion. For many the IETF trust factor is very low after IDNA.

> >So I do not think I can come with real comment on this draft before end 
> of the week.
>
>The draft has not yet even officially been published, and I'm sure
>we'll give at least a week for the first rounds of comments.
>
> >I suggest that we stick to the charter for the time being
>
>That should go without saying.
>
> >(obviously we can propose more) and to the consistency with other RFCs 
> (in particular to IANA ICANN IETF MoU).
>
>That would be http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt, I guess.
>I'm unclear how this is relevant to the specific work items of
>the WG, except in a very general sense.

I responded Doug on this issue.

> >I would also suggest that we make sure Doug Barton is on this list? His 
> guidance would be useful.
>
>If Doug had to be on every list that discussed some IANA-related issues,
>he'd probably not get any sleep. There are well-established ways for
>contacts between WGs and IANA, and we will use them when necessary.

This may represent a serious waste of time and effort if all the concerned 
parties are not aware at the earliest of the problems their own procedure 
and obligations may represent for each others. The lingual issue is central 
to the whole Internet deployement and intergovernance and subject to many 
controversies while IETF/IESG/IAB is not much at ease with it. The last 
thing we want is that we establish a practice which will be further 
contradicted. Again, one IDNA is enough.

> >The same for Harald as the RFC 3066 author (however he said he will be 
> on vacation until May).
>
>I'm very sure Harald knows about this WG, and will subscribe to the
>mailing list if he wants to.
>
> >The move of the Drafts to an IETF WG was a first good normalization 
> move. The second one should be the support of the ietf-languages@iana.org 
> list by the IANA (host, archives, subscription page, etc.).
>
>Traditionally, all IETF-related mailing lists have been hosted by
>volunteers. The hosting of the ietf-languages@iana.org list is a
>support issue that should not concern this WG. What we need
>in our documents is the address of this mailing list, and this is
>already a IANA address, so we should be fine independently of where
>the list is actually hosted.

No. RFC 2860 says differently.

However I may be wrong: can you give me the http://iana.org/xxxx page to 
subscribe to the ietf-languages@iana.org list and to get its archives?

As you know, according the IETF, the Internet is the adherence to the 
Internet documents and procedures produced by the Internet standard 
process. Such an adherence depend on the support brought by the concerned 
parties to their writing. Again IDNA, RFC 3869, RFC 3066 bis Last Calls, 
ietf-languages debates are not really motivating, at least we must show a 
good and documented interface demonstrating a clear commitment  (look at 
the difference between the ICANN IDNA page and the IANA related pages).

The intelligent bootstrap and C-activity concepts which root the RFC 
process do not scale well (http://bootstrap.org). I know: there are 20 
years this year I face their limitations. :-)

All the best.
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