Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050314224257.0399eeb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:01:40 +0100
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] "Obsolete" region subtags (was: Re: Update to
	proposed registry)
In-Reply-To: <010301c528d3$ba36ef20$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <20050314001938.PAYD5424.mta6.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<002701c52833$a99cdd00$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050314024326.03f4fd20@mail.jefsey.com>
	<006201c52843$6b79ee40$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050314120015.03fe3cf0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<010301c528d3$ba36ef20$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 21:23 14/03/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>I really don't see how this is relevant to this WG.  The material cited 
>applies
>to the discovery of technical conflicts in the instructions given IANA for the
>operation of a given registry.  As long as we provide a non-contradictory spec
>for the one registry we are chartered to describe, the cited procedures
>will not be invoked.  The fact that parts of some tags may have bit patterns
>which might also appear in some other registries is merely a coincidence, 
>as far
>as IANA would be concerned, and causes no conflict that would require
>invocation of RFC 2860.

Dear Randy,
I would not like to harp again and again on the same issue (I fully 
responded already to Martin) wich is the difference between a work among a 
few people and RFCs and the real world which is a little larger and more 
complex and where no one really knows RFCs (so many of them).

I fully understand the interest of some coordination between Unicode, W3C, 
etc. and the political interest to use the simple and central Internet 
standard process for that. But please think of this: what is the use for 
the CLDR project to build a coordinated set of cross references, and to be 
blocked at some later stage by the blunt political "no" I fear. I am into 
this for 27 years. Your effort could be very beneficial if caried well or 
very detrimental otherwise: I have not made my mind yet about it. I am not 
opposed to your quick march, but the risk of mission creep and the 
political oppositions are important and I do not feel you really considered 
them all. An RFC is not a standard. A poor RFC as a BCP 047 replacement 
could kill everything.

So, for the time being, please let us stick to the charter. The charter 
does not say that this WG is to define countries independently from ICANN, 
that is from GAC, that is from their own State. Let stick to KISS. This 
process is on the language identification and internationalization layers. 
You may not share my layered analysis of the Multilingual Internet, but 
these layers do exist and if you venture into Country and Language 
definition you will be blocked sometime.

IMHO all this needs adherence. I do not see it yet. Let build it together.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru