Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050914175757.036b27f0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:25:25 +0200
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>,
	IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <p06110442bf4d9e4121d7@[217.167.116.121]>
References: <1126685953.4327dd011388c@webmail.unipd.it>
	<p06110442bf4d9e4121d7@[217.167.116.121]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: iesg@iesg.org
Subject: RE: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

At 11:31 14/09/2005, Michael Everson wrote:
>At 10:19 +0200 2005-09-14, han.steenwijk@unipd.it wrote:
>
>>Are we going to register tags for all of them or should we wait until RFC
>>3066bis is officially adopted?
>
>Surely our colleagues of good will are nearing the final adoption of 
>that revision, which is designed to assist us in our work.

Michael,
you know I disagree with the constrained RFC 3066bis as not end to 
end interoperable and not scalable. I tried to make it changed.  But 
the commercial strategic conflict, now openly disclosing, only 
permitted me to obtain a far better defined ABNF, less interfering 
with our denied needs.

1. we will therefore go our own way to organise a data/metadata 
registry for the lingual spaces of exchanges (langroot). This move 
was not my proposition as I hoped the IETF would foot the needs. I 
only hope we stay as much synchronous as possible in users' best 
interest. I will provide every URL needed to permit this (the 
architecture of the langroot file is quite different from your 
registry. The extension procedure is not even discussed yet as we 
expected to trust and rely on the IANA registry). Hopefully this IETF 
DOS will be corrected by Xmas.

2. we also need that your registry stays as much consistent as 
possible as - IOO - it matches some of the e-commerce and printing 
industry needs. This is why I requested the new registry to be 
reviewed by this mailing list and submitted to your approval before 
being opened. I also think that you should sign the RFC obsoleting 
the current registry. It would be inconsistent you have to state on 
propositions to extend a registry you would not have approved. Also, 
the WG-ltru Charter clearly say that the WG-ltru is not to carry the 
work of this list. His new registry list can therefore only be a 
proposition you have to approve.

This being said, we still want to hope the final solution will be a 
common solution. As I always documented, appeals will be submitted 
while being supported by running codes, existing sites and 
registries. Such appeals will be carried within two months after IESG 
decision. So we can expect IETF/IAB appeals (and proposed merging) to 
be closed by January 2006. If the IETF DOS continued, external 
actions would be engaged.

All this to say that the RFC 3066 registry should still be in use for 
at least six months, and nothing proves yet if it will be replaced.
IESG decision and responsibility.

jfc



_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages