Subject: Seeking reviewers for language tag registry docs in WG last call

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0700

Hi -

We are looking for reviewers for two ltru working group documents.
Language tags are used in many applications and protocols,  so
we'd like to get as broad a review as practical of these:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-09.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt

The working group charter is at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
The issue tracker we've been using is at https://rt.psg.com/ (user
and password "ietf", all our queues start with the string "ltru-".)

Comments should be posted to [email-masked]  If you're not a subscriber
to that mailing list, there will be some delay while your posting is manually
approved. The working group last call will conclude July 28.  If you take
the time to read either or both of these documents, but have no comments,
we'd still like to hear from you, so we will have an idea of how many people
have looked at the documents.

Randy Presuhn, ltru co-chair

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:54:02 +0200

I am glad Randy Preshun now joins my call for additional expertise. This 
Draft is particular: due to its political, cultural and commercial 
implications, and their possible impact on the IETF, what is to be 
considered is probably more what is not in the Draft than the technical 
constraints introduced by the Draft, where I consider that we should simplify.

A first list of questions is under http://rfc3066.org/review.htm. Readers 
should also address these questions. They are important enough to be 
considered carefully, with an open mind. IMHO they call for a dedicated 
document providing a clear, stable, politically protected IETF framework.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:45:39 -0700

Hi -

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Seeking reviewers for language tag registry docs in WG last call
>
...

Please do not be misled by the domain name of http://rfc3066.org/review.htm
That site is not affiliated with the ltru WG or the [email-masked]
mailing list that performs the language tag review function described in RFC 3066.
I think prospective reviewers' time would be much better spent looking at
the actual documents under WG last call, rather than trying to make sense of
the stuff at  http://rfc3066.org/review.htm

The documents under WG last call are
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-09.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt

We'd prefer to have your comments on the documents themselves,
rather than reactions to Jefsey's sometimes over-heated polemic.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:31:37 +0200

>mailing list that performs the language tag review function described in 

This is right. There are two doctrines.
- an exclusive one: to have a new RFC restricting the possibilities of RFC 
3066 in term of language support
- an inclusive one: to keep RFC 3066 as a flexible base for innovation, and 
to accep the Draft in parallel

>the stuff at  http://rfc3066.org/review.htm

The "stuff" concerns considerations on IETF/ISO/UN relative 
authoritativeness, standard disclaimer on political aspects inovlved in 
multilingualism, compatibility between the IANA structure and ISO Registry 
standards, need of retro-compatibility with new propositions, etc.

During a WGLC all the last-call issues must be addressed by the WG. This is 
for me the only way to clarify these points while waiting the WG Charter to 
be analysed.

>rather than reactions to Jefsey's sometimes over-heated polemic.

??? the question is to know if the general points _not_ mentionned into the 
Draft should be added to it, or belong to a separate Framework document?

Very dull and practical.
jfc

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:20:40 +0200

Hi guys,

Until the WG has consensus, can you keep the discussion on
the WG list?

When there is draft ready for IETF Last Call, we can discuss
it here.

Thanks

     Brian

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> - an exclusive one: to have a new RFC restricting the possibilities of 
> RFC 3066 in term of language support
> - an inclusive one: to keep RFC 3066 as a flexible base for innovation, 
> and to accep the Draft in parallel
> 
> multilingualism, compatibility between the IANA structure and ISO 
> Registry standards, need of retro-compatibility with new propositions, etc.
> 
> During a WGLC all the last-call issues must be addressed by the WG. This 
> is for me the only way to clarify these points while waiting the WG 
> Charter to be analysed.
> 
> ??? the question is to know if the general points _not_ mentionned into 
> the Draft should be added to it, or belong to a separate Framework 
> document?
> 
> Very dull and practical.
> jfc 
>