Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050707150832.0532b8b0@pop.online.fr>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:46:11 +0200
To: ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] please, get real!
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

I have been challenged privately to explain publicly why I wanted to see 
the RFC 3066 Registry removed from the IANA. I suppose this is just another 
troll, but I think the point important enough to explain it however 
obvious, challenged or not.

A debate goes on, on the IETF main list, to know if IESG was entitled to 
refuse a code point to Dr. Lawrence Robert. This permits some to follow on 
25 years old feuds, or to come back on old RFCs, or to propose changes to 
RFC 2860, as if it was not the result on a negotiation where the other 
partner is now confirmed as the US Government. What is important to us, is 
to observe that the political layer is quickly reached when a registry 
manager is considered as a Judge and not as a simple registration collector.

- I proposed the Registry to act as a smart recorder: everything is 
accepted except if consensually opposed on the opinion of the reviewer. 
This would reduce the risks of contention and speed-up the process.

- The concerns remains high with the documentation of issues subject to 
national policies. Let say that I want to register en-Latn-US and 
I  describe the language with a reference to an American translation of a 
French Cook Book (we all know that I could give much poorer examples). What 
would be the response?

But in using ISO 3166, we enter political langtags. Even a simple national 
map, a nation's name are political. So, languages....

If you consider the following: 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050613/tc_afp/chinainternetcompanymicrosoft;_ylt=AsL7orP4gnws5tkilESYvF0jtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl 
the permitted pages will necessarily be stamped. This is no different from 
Kentucky press as a concept. This is a language with a referent similar to 
anyEnglish referent but with some terms contextually removed. Necessarily 
at some stage, librarian, press, readers, on-line archives, etc. will want 
to classify the pages using that filtered language. Our role is not to 
judge but to enable: we need to support it (and it is probably good to 
expose it).

But, frankly, is it to IETF (or even ICANN), and to Michael Everson to 
sponsor such a registration? To IANA to broadcast it under the approval of 
IESG? I do not think so. I say that such a problem for the IANA, ICANN and 
everyone, mainly comes from the form of RFC 3066 registration described by 
the Draft. The Internet Community should be mature enough to identify and 
address the problem. To do that it trusts this WG.

Please, get real!
jfc

PS. I suspect that now a friend/avatar(?) of my challenger will ask that I 
am expelled because I rise the proper questions. I mention this because I 
am tired of this personal teasing and I wish it to stop. If you people are 
so aware of this debate, why not to join the WG-ltru? Or may you are on it 
(I do not know all the 57 members of the list).


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru