Subject: [Ltru] update on ISO 639

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:26:45 -0700

I'm on my way home from the TC 37 meeting in Warsaw, and thought I'd
give a quick update on projects in the ISO 639 series.

ISO 639-3 is being advanced to its last stage, FDIS. If things stay on
schedule, the FDIS ballot will be over - and ISO 639-3 will be an ISO
standard -- before the end of the year.

Work is progressing on ISO 639-4 and ISO 639-5. These are not expected
to have much impact on RFC 3066 or its successors, though (unless we
change our minds about wanting to use additional IDs for collections).

An updated working draft for ISO 639-6 was made available just before
the meeting. The leads for that project have been working through the
impact of adopting the ISO 11179 framework for that project. The working
group gave them the go ahead to reference ISO 12620, which (roughly) is
the TC 37 counterpart to ISO 11179. They may still need to reference
directly to ISO 11179 for certain purposes. The team for that project
will be preparing a new working draft this fall for review by the
working group, with the aim of getting it reading for a CD ballot - so
potentially a CD ballot will be distributed before the end of the year.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:07:40 +0200

On 15:26 26/08/2005, Peter Constable said:
>An updated working draft for ISO 639-6 was made available just 
>before the meeting. The leads for that project have been working 
>through the impact of adopting the ISO 11179 framework for that project.

This WG's consensus is that ISO 11179 conflicts with RFC 3066 bis. 
What will you do now?
Consider my proposition for joint serious work?
As I noted the most difficult consensus is over the obvious.
We can only thank and congratulate Debbie and Lee.

As I explained it ISO is of interest to us only as a left-over of RFC 
3066. ISO is "flat table" oriented. Our interest is in networking. 
ISO 11179 considers the right area of interest, has interesting 
approaches, but looks like an "OSI X.500" bird. You will note that 
ISO 11179 does not consider multilingualism and networking yet. The 
proper approach is networking, service architecture, multilingualism 
and then details like RFC 3066 bis. Details are important, but they 
are the final touch.
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:20:20 +0200

Peter Constable wrote:
 
> a quick update on projects in the ISO 639 series.

Thanks for info.

> ISO 639-3 will be an ISO standard -- before the end of the
> year.

Okay, then let's add 3066ter to the LTRU milestones, while we
are all still hot about the 3066bis details... ;-)  Bye, Frank

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:22:43 +0900

Hello Frank,

Randy may know more details about this, but in general,
an IETF WG first completes the existing milestones, and
only then maybe applies for a charter extension with new
work. Of course there sometimes are exceptions to this,
but I think they are very rare. Also, our plan is to
finish the matching draft by October, so let's try to
concentrate on that one.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:38:29 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: update on ISO 639
...
> finish the matching draft by October, so let's try to
...

Martin is quite right.  The relevant text is RFC 2418 section 5,
where it says:

   Rechartering (other than revising milestones) a working group follows
   the same procedures that the initial chartering does (see section 2).
   The revised charter must be submitted to the IESG and IAB for
   approval.  As with the initial chartering, the IESG may approve new
   charter as-is, it may request that changes be made in the new charter
   (including having the Working Group continue to use the old charter),
   or it may decline to approve the rechartered working group.  In the
   latter case, the working group is disbanded.

This sometimes happens when a group has not met its milestones;
the current discussion in the isms working group is a good example
of that kind of situation.

As for our situation, as co-chair I wholeheartedly agree with Martin that we should
complete our chartered work before asking for more work.

As a technical contributor, I'd like to see the fate of other registry proposals
not the responsibility of this working group, e.g.,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-royer-timezone-registry-03.txt and
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-03.txt,
before deciding whether to spend time on another effort like this one.

Randy