New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
blilly at erols.com
Tue Dec 21 21:59:21 CET 2004
> Date: 2004-12-21 00:57
> From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> The RFC 3066bis approach involves creating a registry of all the pieces
> that can make, or be combined to make, a language tag. This is much
> easier to implement and understand than chasing down the various
> standards and their history, and it permits stability that cannot exist
> if ISO maintenance agencies change their codes.
Substituting a Numbers Authority for a Maintenance Agency
might not solve the problem; indeed it may bring new problems.
IANA isn't infallible, and has botched some registry entries.
for an example.
> Vernon Schryver [...] characterized debating RFC 3066bis (for over a year!)
> within the IETF-Languages group, and only presenting it to other groups
> during the Last Call period, as a "process problem,"
> and charged this
> group with engaging in "lawyerly talk such as whether 'accounts' is more
> appropriate than 'account'" even though no such exchange ever took place
> (I checked the archives back to January 2002).
No, he was referring to concurrent discussions on the
IETF mailing list.
> Now Bruce wants us to wait a few more days before rolling out his
> suggestions to fix these perceived problems.
> This is a filibuster, an attempt to stall RFC 3066bis out of existence.
I also (i.e. in addition to JFC) find that characterization
offensive. I am responding to an IETF New Last Call in
accordance with established procedures, and within the time
period established. I had at one time entertained an
informal approach to addressing the procedural issues, but
given such an accusation, I am now inclined to use the
formal procedure outlined in RFC 2026 section 6.5.2.
More information about the Ietf-languages