Subject: [Ltru] is there some wiskey in the jar - [was: Registry in record-jar format]

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:40:17 -0800

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:

> Also, before that I am not sure ietf-languages can cope with that
> workload (with a 15 days debate, etc.). Let remember that we have 7500
> languages and 240 countries (rough figures), I suppose that the total
> amount of registrations may be in the range of  30-100.000.

This has been explained to Jefsey already, more than once, on the
ietf-languages list.  But for those who may be hearing this for the
first time:

1.  RFC 3066bis, like RFC 3066 and RFC 1766 before it, has what is
called a "generative" mechanism.  Language tags are generated from the
combination of a primary language subtag and an optional region
(country) subtag.  That means if there are N language subtags and M
region subtags, the number of possible tags based on these subtags is (N
x M), but the number of things that need to be registered is only (N +
M).  So there is no need to register 100,000 of anything.

RFC 3066bis introduces more types of subtags, but the arithmetic is
still the same.

2.  In the initial registry, subtags derived from code elements in ISO
standards do not need to be "registered" one by one, using the same
lengthy review process that is now needed to register special
combinations under RFC 3066.  They are included in the registry by
acclamation, as it were.  All we have to do -- we, this group, not IANA
or ietf-languages -- is determine the rules for which code elements are
admitted and which are not.  So we don't even have to register (N + M)
items as above.

3.  RFC 3066bis in its present form does not support ISO 639-3 with its
7500+ additional languages.  That is only a draft at this stage, not an
approved standard, as we JUST got done saying.  So any arithmetic
involving 7500+ languages is misleading on its face.

> Plus private registration - over the years this may amount to millions
> if SNHNs start playing the way every indication show they will. The
> first question about this is: who will pay?

Private-use tags and subtags are private-use.  They are not included in
the registry.  If anyone wants to create a private-use tag or subtag,
they bear any costs of doing so.  How could it be otherwise?

> - there will be millions/billions of pages referencing the DTD, the
> urls, etc. which will lead to a IANA access 24/366. Some evaluations
> are needed about the resulting traffic and the CPU load before IANA
> can just discuss it. I am not sure, but we are replicating bigger than
> the DNS root here.

You are not sure.  That much is true.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:02:02 -0800

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:

> If we're going to consider different formats for the registry, might I
> suggest that an even better format would be XML?

You might.

Oh, all right, I'll do an XML version too and post it, so you guys can
see that one too.

XML has all the advantages and disadvantages that people have mentioned
so far, and probably many more of both.  XML is sort of like California:
anything anyone can say about it is true.

Actually I had wondered before about converting the registry to XML, but
wasn't sure how it should be structured.  (The eternal question:
"Elements or attributes?  Which will serve me best?")  For this version,
I'll use Addison's example blindly, but without any extra information
(such as URLs) that isn't already in the existing registry.  Don't hold
your breath; I'll announce when it's ready.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California