Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907163334.037cfb00@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:06:09 +0200
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>,
	"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, <iesg@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Last call comments on LTRU registry and
	initialization documents
In-Reply-To: <00c201c5b3b6$526074c0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <BCB06905F4E94601456C001A@scan.jck.com>
	<00c201c5b3b6$526074c0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

John,
the problem we face here is a lack of knowledge of what the users are 
supposed to expect from the data in this draft. The amount of data is 
important, and there is no distribution strategy documented (except 
on the mailing list as: "as Unicode"). This is rather concerning 
since we are confronted here to a situation which could be similar to 
the Host.txt situation in the early 80s. And to a IANA political 
situation comparable to the DNS governance.

To limit the risk of IANA overload, with the need of a foreign 
distribution system which would control the MultiLingual Internet, 
and to preserve the control of IETF over the langroot, I suggested an 
ill taylored but probably operationnally adequate solution. The 
langroot file (Doug Ewell documents here) would be maintained as a 
Draft and updated every months. Drafts have a well established 
distribution system and I do not think that an application developper 
will come and read a Draft at each machine boot. This way the 
langroot disemination would be easily hierarchical (ISP, users, etc) 
and the pressure on the main server would be far lower (requests once 
a month, rather than once a day).

As the langroot develops there will most probably be a mission creep 
and calls for ietf-languages@lavestrand.no playing for languages a 
role similar to ICANN for names, with a similar IANA split of 
responsibilities. I think this would be politically not-acceptable. I 
would prefer to avoid a future conflict and a balkanisation 
motivation in cancelling the ietf-languages@alvestrand.no mailing 
list and in transfering its role to the WG-ltru, so the task stays in 
line with IETF evolution and protocols requirements, and under its 
IESG (IAB reviewed) Charter.
jfc




At 16:13 07/09/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>John C Klensin <john dash ietf at jck dot com> wrote:
>
> > Then an instruction to the RFC Editor could be included in the
> > I-D asking that they not publish the initialization document
> > until the entries have been made in the IANA registry and then
> > that the list of entries be dropped and replaced with a pointer
> > paragraph and reference.  That would lead to an RFC that was
> > clearly informational and fairly short, saving everyone
> > long-term problems.
>
>The whole purpose of draft-initial is to serve as the vehicle by which
>the initial registry contents are transmitted to IANA.  That was what
>the co-chairs and group thought best.  There would be no need for a
>separate initialization document otherwise.
>
>--
>Doug Ewell
>Fullerton, California
>http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru