Subject: [Ltru] responses to JFC's issues...

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:40:30 -0800

I note some new issues in the issues list at http://133.2.210.1/2006/IETF/ltru/. Here are my reactions:

Issue #3: while "filtering" does describe some aspects of what the matching draft does, it does so no better than the word "matching" and it doesn't cover what the document is about as clearly.

-1

Issue #4: Figure 3 shows remove-from-right truncation. While Section 4.3 suggests that users can use private use subtags however they want, both 3066bis and this document make quite clear that matching schemes do not consider the semantics of the subtags. Users are strongly cautioned not to create private use subtags that depend on relationships in the sequence of subtags as a result. See Section 4.1.

-1

Issue #5: The qualitative observations are impossible to address. Personally, I think the text of section 4.1 is quite clear and relatively clean. This section consists of guidelines for users choosing language tags and ranges. As such, these are (I guess) semi-constraints, but they are appropriate IMO.

-1

Issues #6, #8: I believe that the security considerations section already documents what JFC is asking for. It quite clearly states that language priority lists might be used to track user requests and user's activities. I don't see what additional warning needs to be made about "mass profiling" (what applies to individuals applies to groups of individuals). I must admit that I don't follow any of this argument and, lacking a concrete proposal, can't really address it. I mean, if I understand this at all, JFC is suggesting that identifying languages or language preferences should be banned as a violation of privacy?

-1

Issue #7: I addressed Section 4.1 already (issue 5). Section 3.3 (Lookup) is just over three pages long. It is more involved than the sections on filtering, but then the algorithm is more involved. I'm tempted to reject it out of hand, but if there were a concrete proposal on how better to organize the text or modifications to the text, I'd consider those. For now:

-1

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:09:16 +0100

Dear Addison,
you do what you want with your proposition. My concern is only 
interoperability. My next steps will be as for RFC 3066 bis : an 
appeal to the IESG. IESG has shown they do not want a leadership in 
networked languages area. But they will have to decide is they care 
or not about interoperability.

If they do not care, as for RFC 3066 bis, we will proceed as for RFC 
3066 Bis : we will document the risks of using your proposition you 
do not document (and document that we tried to make you correct 
them); and we will try to maintain interoperability from our side. 
Even if our approach is inclusive, there may always be conflicts when 
a system has not be designed to avoid them.

jfc

At 18:40 19/03/2006, Addison Phillips wrote:

>I note some new issues in the issues list at 
>http://133.2.210.1/2006/IETF/ltru/. Here are my reactions:
>
>Issue #3: while "filtering" does describe some aspects of what the 
>matching draft does, it does so no better than the word "matching" 
>and it doesn't cover what the document is about as clearly.
>
>-1
>
>Issue #4: Figure 3 shows remove-from-right truncation. While Section 
>4.3 suggests that users can use private use subtags however they 
>want, both 3066bis and this document make quite clear that matching 
>schemes do not consider the semantics of the subtags. Users are 
>strongly cautioned not to create private use subtags that depend on 
>relationships in the sequence of subtags as a result. See Section 4.1.
>
>-1
>
>Issue #5: The qualitative observations are impossible to address. 
>Personally, I think the text of section 4.1 is quite clear and 
>relatively clean. This section consists of guidelines for users 
>choosing language tags and ranges. As such, these are (I guess) 
>semi-constraints, but they are appropriate IMO.
>
>-1
>
>Issues #6, #8: I believe that the security considerations section 
>already documents what JFC is asking for. It quite clearly states 
>that language priority lists might be used to track user requests 
>and user's activities. I don't see what additional warning needs to 
>be made about "mass profiling" (what applies to individuals applies 
>to groups of individuals). I must admit that I don't follow any of 
>this argument and, lacking a concrete proposal, can't really address 
>it. I mean, if I understand this at all, JFC is suggesting that 
>identifying languages or language preferences should be banned as a 
>violation of privacy?
>
>-1
>
>Issue #7: I addressed Section 4.1 already (issue 5). Section 3.3 
>(Lookup) is just over three pages long. It is more involved than the 
>sections on filtering, but then the algorithm is more involved. I'm 
>tempted to reject it out of hand, but if there were a concrete 
>proposal on how better to organize the text or modifications to the 
>text, I'd consider those. For now:
>
>-1
>
>Addison
>
>Addison Phillips

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:41:09 +0100

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 07:09:16PM +0100,
 r&d afrac <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 89 lines which said:

> we will document the risks of using your proposition you do not
> document (and document that we tried to make you correct them); and
> we will try to maintain interoperability from our side.

Since "our" is just an isolated troll in his home, I believe we can
safely ignore it completely.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:29:22 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:41 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: responses to JFC's issues...
...
> safely ignore it completely.
...

Everyone:
Please limit your comments here to the technical work of this working group,
and avoid personal attacks and insults, no matter how tempting the target might
seem.  This world has enough problems as it is.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:44:20 -0800

I agree: -1 for all of the supposed issues.

Mark