LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Sep 14 18:25:25 CEST 2005
At 11:31 14/09/2005, Michael Everson wrote:
>At 10:19 +0200 2005-09-14, han.steenwijk at 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.
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.
More information about the Ietf-languages