Subject: Re: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial registry draft?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:03:51 +0200 (GMT+02:00)

Hi -

As a technical contributor, I believe there is no technical need for the
proposed addition.  further, I believe that the proposed text is technically
incorrect: the initial registry document does NOT "establish" the registry.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Sent: Aug 5, 2005 9:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial	registry draft?

Hi -

We're in second working group last call.  Jefsey has kindly provided
specific text he would like added to the initial registry draft, which is
planned to be submitted for consideration for publication as an Informational
RFC.  Does the WG believe that this addition is technically necessary?

Randy, ltru co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Sent: Aug 5, 2005 6:55 AM
To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial  registry draft?

Dear Randy,

At 18:45 04/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>It's not clear to me how one would apply the recommendations of RFC 2277
>in this case.  Could you suggest some meaningful text to go in the
>internationalizations considerations section you request?  Unless such 
>text adds
>significant technical value to the document, I would argue against making such
>a change at this late stage in the process.  Since the only use of the 
>contents
>of this document is to initialize the IANA registry, I believe any 
>internationalization
>considerations would belong in the registry document, rather than here.

I suppose you are right.
But it is rather odd to document all the languages and the scripts of the 
world in ASCII without explaning why. Some people could think it is because 
of a natural superiority of the Anglicanus Mens.

>I note that both the abstract and the document text are quite clear that they
>are talking about the IANA registry, so I believe the editor faithfully 
>applied the
>change I (not Addison, as you write) suggested.

Oh! I know that you asked to make sure you would block one of my remarks, 
just in case. Addison said he did it. What I say is that the correction is 
in the Abstract only. The IANA exclusive is not repeated in the text.

>On the issue of ISO 11173 alignment, this issue is OLD and 
>rejected.  Reopening
>at this time has not been justified.

I just wanted to make sure you would confirm it, because the text still 
could be construed as permitting such an alignment. May be this could be 
indicated. I suggest the following text:

"This document establishes an independent registry. This registry is not 
intended to be related to any registry, database or content not documented 
in this document."

I suppose this is what you want to say.
jfc

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

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:31:14 +0200

Randy,
I read your comment. So, I will rephrase my text to express what a reader 
will expect from the text due to the involvement of ISO standards, directly 
or indirectly subject to ISO 11173 (at least via ISO 639-4). UN has no 
position I know of about ISO 11173, but the day they align, every developer 
will expect by way of consequences that IANA registries based upon and ISO 
and UN codes also aligns. ISO 11173 procedures and related libraries will 
naturally be expected to work.

You can chose between the two following texts. I obviously favor (b), but I 
am neutral about ISO 11173 support in the context of the Draft I globally 
disapprove . But I am not neutral about confusion: when you decide 
something you should document it. I have no doubt that IESG will adopt the 
same position. An RFC is a document to help developers and to support a 
consistent common compatibility.

Proposed choice (or anyone can better the texts if respecting their 
intent). The target is clarity.

(a) "Even if the registry documented in this memo relates in part to ISO 
codes it is not aligned on ISO 11173 provisions."

(b) "The registry documented in this memo relates in part to ISO codes and 
SHOULD respect their alignment on ISO 11173 provisions as they develop."

NB. The open source libraries we will eventually develop, test and produce 
will support both "0-" escape sequence and ISO 11173 support. They will 
obviously also be restricted (probably as an alternative version for 
simpler use) to the specifications of this Draft, the day it is implemented 
- if this happens - to support every users (we do not compete against 
anyone as others do, we just strive to best serve all the users).  We may 
very well then be in a limbo situation regarding ISO 11173 if (a) or (b) is 
not included, and if ISO 11173 leads to contradictions (please remember 
that ISO 11173 has not yet worked on the multilingual and on the networking 
issues). That day we could put a disclaimer indicating we rose the question 
at the WG and were opposed.

This may be also handled in the Security section, considering that ISO 
11173 (no) conformance would be a danger of confusion? But it would be a 
strange place for such a concern.

jfc

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:14:44 -0700

Strongly agree

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 01:03
Subject: Re: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to
initialregistry draft?