Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #1014] make scope of applicability universal

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:34:33 -0700

Hi -

I've created a ticket in the issue tracker at https://rt.psg.com/ for this:

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg01358.html
> says:
> "1. in having an language identification framework applicable
> to _every_ Internet Standard Process needs, past and future.
> This should be accompanied by a letter to the IESG or a part
> in the Draft to provide further guidance on the Charter revisions.
> It should document why this brings consistency, stability, security
> and capacity for Internet standards scalability. This general
> framework should succeed to RFC 3066 as RFC 047."

As a technical contributor:
The current (-02) id makes no claim to universal applicability, nor does
it explicitly limit its applicability.  It says:

   This document specifies an identifier mechanism and a registration
   function for values to be used with that identifier mechanism.  It
   also defines a mechanism for private use values and future extension.

To me, this seems in line with our charter, which similarly implies
that the specification may have wide applicability, without requiring
universality, when it says: "Language tags are necessary for many applications,
ranging from cataloging content to computer processing of text. The
RFC 3066 standard for language tags has been widely adopted in various
protocols and text formats, including HTML, XML, and CLDR, as the best
means of identifying languages and language preferences."

Consequently, as a technical contributor, I think we should reject this
proposal, as supporting "_every_ Internet Standard Process needs, past and
future" would be like trying to boil the ocean, preventing us from
completing our assigned task in a timely manner.

As co-chair, I note that none voiced support for this proposal, but I'd like
to give one last opportunity for discussion before I mark it "rejected".
In particular, does anyone see a need to be more explicit about the
intended applicability of language tags?

Randy

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