comments on the draft - 2

jcowan at jcowan at
Tue Jun 8 21:56:24 CEST 2004

Peter Constable scripsit:

> There has been reference to a "freeze", but I consider it a not
> so great idea to have stability of this protocol dependent on another
> standard being unnecessarily constrained, and inappropriate to expect
> that that standard should be unnecessarily limited in its ability to
> meet the need of some users because of concerns that lie within a
> different, consuming protocol.

There's a trust relationship between ISO 639-1 MA and the IETF at present.
(I note that UTC doesn't take precautions against being stabbed in the
back by WG2.)  Really all that's needed is that existing ISO 639-2 languages
aren't given novel 639-1 codes: hardly onerous.

> 3.1: Re the registration form: Is there some IETF policy that restricts
> us to ask only for the native name of a language *transcribed into
> ASCII*? 

Pretty much.  IETF documents are still rather firmly ASCII.  The question of
whether this restriction has now had its day is a plenary one which this
list can't resolve.

"May the hair on your toes never fall out!"     John Cowan
        --Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo)         jcowan at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list