Subject: RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications, and extensions

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:49:32 -0800

Could you please pursue this rather technical discussion on a
specialized list, rather than the main IETF list?

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:42:31 -0500

>>>>> "Christian" == Christian Huitema <[email-masked]> writes:

    Christian> Could you please pursue this rather technical
    Christian> discussion on a specialized list, rather than the main
    Christian> IETF list?

There is sort of this problem that most of this traffic is last call
comments on a document.  Our procedures require that last call
comments be sent to [email-masked] or [email-masked].  [email-masked] is
not a public list; so if you want to make a last call comment that is
visible to the world, not just the IESG, you do need to copy
[email-masked].

That said, I think this discussion could benefit from discussion on
the ietf-languages lists with agreed summaries at the end of the last
call period.

Sam, speaking as an individual.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:41:02 -0500

> specialized list, rather than the main IETF list?

Christian,

It seems to me that we are in a bit of a procedural bind on
this.   The spec has been developed, we are told, on the
"ietf-languages" list, but that is a mailing list, not a WG with
a charter.  The document is being processed as an individual
submission, but an individual submission of a BCP that is
intended to replace a BCP that arguably received broader
community review and that is in fairly wide use.  Whatever else
the spec may be, it appears to be controversial, with at least
some folks who are often considered (however wrongly) to have
some idea about what they are talking about being quite
dissatisfied with aspects of it.   We are in (but nearing the
end of) an IETF Last Call.   It is unusual to Last Call an
individual submission document that turns out to be this
controversial, but the nature of the Last Call rules is such
that the IETF list probably is the right place, at least
procedurally, to have the discussion.

>From my point of view, a note to the IESG asking that they
formally abandon the Last Call given the level of controversy
and find a WG (and WG mailing list) to assign the task of
reaching some sort of agreement to would be entirely
appropriate, but that is probably the only procedurally-correct
way to get this off the IETF list while still leaving open the
possibility of a document for which a claim of approval by IETF
consensus could be made.

   john

---

From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:55:43 -0800

The characterization of this draft as "controversial" because two or three people object to *any* change of RFC 3066, regardless of any evidence presented of evolving needs and careful consideration thereof, is incorrect. Let's let the IESG decide on that.

Asking the IESG to abandon the Last Call because you don't like the draft or because you don't care for our responses to you is, frankly, odious. Let the process play out.

None of the comments I've seen from you or others can, in fact, be characterized as other than a subjective judgment of the draft or a criticism that applies to the existing draft. It *may* be true that your subjective judgments are correct, but then again, it may be that yours is an outlying minority view, at least once folks have reviewed the draft, arguments in its favor, and responses to comments on it.

Let's trust in the process and the IESG to decide how to proceed: present your objections and comments. Please allow for discussion as appropriate, possibly on the languages list instead of on the ietf list, if you prefer. Then, if one party or the other disagrees with the result, the aggrieved can all consider the various appeals processes open to the losers. I'm sorry about the volume, but don't know how else to deal with the complex arguments presented.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: 2005年1月3日 18:41
> To: Christian Huitema
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications, 
> and extensions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 04:54:52 +0100

At 00:55 05/01/2005, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
>The characterization of this draft as "controversial" because two or three 
>people object to *any* change of RFC 3066, regardless of any evidence 
>presented of evolving needs and careful consideration thereof, is incorrect.

Dear Addison,
your draft is not controverted for bettering RFC 3066 but for not bettering 
it enough, in an interapplication concerted way, for the standard you want 
your draft to become. I cannot respond for John or Christian. But I will 
document for the few I represent.

>Let's let the IESG decide on that.

I am sorry. The IESG does not decide about the document, but about the 
existence of a consensus. We tried to get one. But you decided not to 
respond. So, there is *no* consensus. There are even *strong* political 
(Governmental) oppositions. I document this below.

>Asking the IESG to abandon the Last Call because you don't like the draft 
>or because you don't care for our responses to you is, frankly, odious. 
>Let the process play out.

Please do not take it that way. No one is odious. We are here to loyally 
help. And find the best solution together. What would be unfair would be to 
impose on us something. There MUST be a consensus. Also, think that no one 
has had the time to think over your Draft, during the years end period. And 
you refuse to discuss it.

We supported you. I still do provided your Draft only claim to be an 
extension of RFC 3066, for the applications wishing to use it, since 
several say it cannot be an RFC for Information. The issue and the document 
confusion and paucity are too important for the world, for the IETF and for 
my 27 years long fight for the users, for me to accept it to be an Internet 
standard.

If we live the process play out, hopefully the Last Call will be abandoned 
(actually I understand you abandoned it since you have a -09.txt none one 
has seen). If you accept to discuss the most important objection, may be we 
could reach a quick consensus. But your "I will not comment most of 
Jefsey's points" is not serious. Everyone could read them and several 
commented them positively off line.

Let understand the (several) Governments and specialized organizations 
concerns. I reported (please correct me if I was wrong) them:

1. the Internet standard process permits IAB Chartered IETF WGs to propose 
Drafts to the review of the IESG which examines them, may call on experts 
and has a Last Call before endorsing them as RFCs. It also permits groups 
of individual to propose private Draft to the IESG.

2. there is an RFC 3066 which documents languages in giving them a 
language+country-code tag. This tag is used in applications like the Web to 
know the language of a page. Special language tags can be registered with 
the ICANN's IANA. All the tags build a directory of the languages of the 
countries of the world.

3. there is a great need for a better multilingual support. A multilingual 
Internet is both a technical priority and a WSIS major priority. The IAB 
has not acknowledged this in listing its R&D funding priorities in RFC 3869.

4. a group of private specialists proposes to get accepted by the IESG a 
replacement of the RFC 3066. It adds the consideration of the scripting 
together with the language and the country. It adds more stringent 
registration rules for the language tags and wants to be the Internet 
standard to designate languages. This means that the resulting of directory 
of language will be the unique reference for the Internet.

5. the Last Call debate has shown that the authors want only to consider a 
unique language tag to be registered for the national written expression of 
a language, without adding the possibility to document their various usage 
and their documenting authorities. This means there will be a single 
Internet scripted language per country in Search Engines, Web Pages, Domain 
Names, Web Services, on-line literature, e-learning, e-commerce, 
e-government, protocols, technical translations, etc.

6. I explained that we work (AFRAC, an experimental national reference 
center) on the complimentary concepts of a Multilingualism ontology 
considering scripting and vocal language instantiations, their descriptors 
list, semantic, filtering algorithms and possible authoritative cultural 
intergovernance. That we supported the effort engaged by the author of the 
draft but found their text premature as a projected standard.

The first answers I received (we were in a vacations period) include the 
following comments/questions:

- there is at least two Internet scriptings : upper/lower case and case 
indifferent. Are they supported?
- there is different character sets: scientific language includes Greek 
characters, administrative do not. how do they address that?
- is it compatible with the IDNs tables which will already designate the 
Web page access and be used in its links?
- who is to register that unique definition of our national language?
- if this was true, this definition should result from a comprehensive law 
describing the authorized variations?
- what are the technical alternatives to this sovereignty violation?
- this kind of thing has been already attempted for IDN tables, resulting 
in their author's public apologies
- if this was a standard, its paucity will lead to patented application 
additions. Language standard must be comprehensive and free.
- scripts, cultures and dialects born and die everywhere everyday, they 
also are oral. 20.000 dialects are known. Are they supported
- our work was fully supported and the idea of a rigid language description 
tag not accepted by any correspondents so far.

>None of the comments I've seen from you or others can, in fact, be 
>characterized as other than a subjective judgment of the draft or a 
>criticism that applies to the existing draft. It *may* be true that your 
>subjective judgments are correct, but then again, it may be that yours is 
>an outlying minority view, at least once folks have reviewed the draft, 
>arguments in its favor, and responses to comments on it.

This is not a vote. This is an effort for everyone to support you. You do 
not really help.
There is no judgment. Just questions, suggestions, effort to understand the 
targets, the cons and pros and if the pros outweigh the cons.

>Let's trust in the process and the IESG to decide how to proceed: present 
>your objections and comments. Please allow for discussion as appropriate, 
>possibly on the languages list instead of on the ietf list, if you prefer.

We are on a Last Call. There is no IETF language list.

>Then, if one party or the other disagrees with the result, the aggrieved 
>can all consider the various appeals processes open to the losers.

???? There cannot be any other loser than the whole community. No one is to 
lose. We are here to help.

>  I'm sorry about the volume, but don't know how else to deal with the 
> complex arguments presented.

Just in responding them.
You have all our support until you are right.
jfc

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:16:25 -0500

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:

> your draft is not controverted for bettering RFC 3066 but for not 
> bettering it enough, in an interapplication concerted way, for the 
> standard you want your draft to become. 

The intent is that the draft become a BCP replacing RFC 3066 (also a BCP),
not an Internet Standard.

> There are even *strong* political 

Which governments object, and where?

> And you refuse to discuss it.

That is a canard.  We have done our best to meet all objections fairly.

> several say it cannot be an RFC for Information. 

What do you mean by "extension of RFC 3066".  RFCs are not "extended";
they are updated or obsoleted.  The intention is to obsolete RFC 3066
(BCP 47) and create a new BCP 47.  BCPs are not Internet Standards.

> The document confusion and paucity are too important for the world, for the 
> IETF and for my 27 years long fight for the users, for me to accept it to 
> be an Internet standard.

There is no intention to make the draft an Internet Standard.

> replacement of the RFC 3066.

The same "group of private specialists" that proposed, wrote, and got
IESG approval for RFC 3066, and has been administering it for the last
four years.  Indeed, the same group that proposed, wrote, and got 
approval for RFC 1766 and administered that from 1995 to 2001.

> It adds the consideration of the scripting 
> together with the language and the country.

Many tags with script information were registered under RFC 3066 and
are in use today.  The new draft simply allows ISO 15924 script tags
to be used freely in a disciplined fashion and compatibly with their
existing uses under RFC 3066.

> It adds more stringent registration rules for the language tags

No more or less stringent than under RFC 3066: discussion on
[email-masked], approval by the Language (Sub)Tag Reviewer,
and registration by IANA.

> and wants to be the Internet standard to designate languages.

The draft does not propose an Internet Standard.

> This means that the resulting of 
> directory of language will be the unique reference for the Internet.

No more and no less so than the current IANA registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags .

> 5. the Last Call debate has shown that the authors want only to consider 
> a unique language tag to be registered for the national written 
> expression of a language, without adding the possibility to document 
> their various usage and their documenting authorities.

That is simply false.

> This means there 
> will be a single Internet scripted language per country in Search 
> Engines, Web Pages, Domain Names, Web Services, on-line literature, 
> e-learning, e-commerce, e-government, protocols, technical translations, 
> etc.

This is patent nonsense, since the draft does not prohibit anything that
RFC 3066 allows.

> considering scripting and vocal language instantiations, their 
> descriptors list, semantic, filtering algorithms and possible 
> authoritative cultural intergovernance. That we supported the effort 
> engaged by the author of the draft but found their text premature as a 
> projected standard.

The draft does not propose an Internet Standard.

> indifferent. Are they supported?

This is incomprehensible.  Language tags under the draft are case-insensitive,
as they always have been under RFCs 3066 and 1766.

> characters, administrative do not. how do they address that?

The draft addresses languages, not character sets.

> Web page access and be used in its links?

If RFC 3066 is compatible, then so is this draft, since every RFC 3066
language tag is permitted by this draft.

> - who is to register that unique definition of our national language?

The draft does not define languages, only a method of tagging them.

> - if this was true, this definition should result from a comprehensive 
> law describing the authorized variations?

The draft does not define languages.  Very few languages have a legal
definition of any sort: English does not, for example.

> - what are the technical alternatives to this sovereignty violation?

There is no violation of anyone's sovereignty here.

> additions. Language standard must be comprehensive and free.

The draft does not propose a standard of any sort.

> also are oral. 20.000 dialects are known. Are they supported

Yes, in potentia.  Names of dialects can be registered as language
variants under the procedures given in the draft.

> - our work was fully supported and the idea of a rigid language 
> description tag not accepted by any correspondents so far.

RFC 3066 language tags are in wide use.

-- 
"Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child        John Cowan
could understand this report.  Run out          [email-masked]
and find me a four-year-old child.  I           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it."             http://www.reutershealth.com
        --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:04:44 -0500

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:

> I also note the importance of the "entities" given by the Internet 
> standard process in BCPs. I would be interested in knowing which entities 
> are participating as such (or nearly as such - I see the W3C, which other 
> entity?) to this proposition.

Construe, construe!  The entities mentioned in your quotation are the
IAB and the IESG.

-- 
Principles.  You can't say A is         John Cowan <[email-masked]>
made of B or vice versa.  All mass      http://www.reutershealth.com
is interaction.  --Richard Feynman      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan