Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050910044532.03c0aca0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:47:42 +0200
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Last call comments on LTRU registry and
	initialization documents
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

At 18:42 09/09/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>The draft does not include any of the overlapping codes on purpose. 
>This is conformant with both RFC 3066 Section 2.2 and draft-registry 
>Section 2.2.1, which both mandate that, where ISO 639-1 (alpha2) and 
>ISO 639-2 (alpha3) codes exist, only the ISO 639-1 codes be used. 
>The registry contains only subtags that are valid in language tags.

This is not what I ask. I say that the registered subtags should 
mention their standardised equivalence in other ISO tables. The 
proposed information is of no help when my application already uses 
an ISO 639-2 (or ISO 639-3) since I have no indication to convert it. 
However, if you do not provide it, we will provide it : it will make 
some advertising to our langroot.

>I know I'm going to regret asking, but why would the IESG need 
>approval from Michael Everson to tell IANA to publish a registry? 
>They appoint him, after all.

I am afraid you might know many things wrong.

The IESG needs approval from Michael _because_ they appointed him to 
that end.  Unless you want to fire him? The Charter explicitely says:

"This working group will not take over the existing review function 
of the ietf-languages list. The ietf-languages list will continue to 
review tags according to RFC 3066 until the first document produced 
by the WG is approved by the IESG for publication as an RFC. Then it 
will review according to whatever procedures the first document specifies."

1) your Draft says that a batch registration is to be made. This is 
part of the new procedures: the Charters say it is to be reviewed.
2) Michael will review subtags the same as today, there is no special 
difference between what is in the Draft and what he is to approve.
2) only Michael has been appointed by the IESG to be "IETF 
authoritative" about the rightness of the Draft. How can we know 
otherwise he has no legitimate IETF opposition or there is no error 
since he is not on this list (he said it).

Actually I am wrong: the whole Draft should be reviewed by 
ietf-languages@alvestrand.no and _then_ Michael should approve it. 
How do you want them to work on something they did not agree.

To make sure Michael is consulted, is also a simple polite courtesy for us
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru