Subject: [Ltru] Re: IANA ISO 3166 related Registries

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:11:36 -0700

r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote:

> Addison describes his intent to rule the future. No objection to that,
> except he also wants to rule the net.(BCP 47)

I am amazed and bewildered that this sort of personal abuse is allowed
to continue, month after month.  It makes me not want to participate any
more.

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

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:15:15 +0200

>to continue, month after month.  It makes me not want to participate any

Which abuse ???? Your mail is either hurting without reason or a troll? Or 
it may also be that you are not familiar with the Internet architecture and 
with the Internet standard process? In that case:

- Addison describes his plan which is to make what he calls RFC 3066 
bis/ter to more and more define a grammar, semantic, etc. So every version 
stays compatible with the previous one (but not the previous one with the 
new one). This has the advantage to get at the end of the day a very 
strict, may be clear (if there are not too many complexity to address the 
legacy of the previous RFCs), an probably stable system. I have no problem 
with this, except that I do not understand its use. But Addison says he 
needs it.

- the problem is that he also wants to make his draft to replace RFC 3066, 
what will make it  ipso-facto the new BCP 47. BCP 47 is the current rule of 
the net in matter of languages.

I do not see what can be abusive and personal in this??? This problem is 
the _only_ real problem of this Draft. It was documented at length by John 
Klensin, Dave Crocker and others during the last Last Call and will make 
the next Last Call fail.

This lack of understanding of the Internet standard process by W3C people 
can be easily shown. You go on Google and look for "W3C RFC 3066" (and 
RFC3066): there are 14,950 responses. If you enter the same "W3C BCP 47", 
you get 675 responses (0.5%). This means that people refer to the 
non-canonical version of what they want to say, and that they will have to 
update all of them if the Draft is approved. Would they have understood the 
Internet standard process document management system, they would have most 
probably used BCP as a BCP can be updated, not an RFC, and is therefore 
canonical.

jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:47:49 -0700

r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote:

>>> Addison describes his intent to rule the future. No objection to
>>> that, except he also wants to rule the net.(BCP 47)
>>
>> I am amazed and bewildered that this sort of personal abuse is
>> allowed to continue, month after month.  It makes me not want to
>> participate any more.
>
> Which abuse ???? Your mail is either hurting without reason or a
> troll?

This is not the first time you have claimed that either this WG or its
members are trying to "rule the future" or "take over the world."  This
WG is trying to expand the existing mechanism for specifying the
language of content on the Internet and elsewhere.  You greatly
overestimate the global importance of this project, and badly
misunderstand the intentions of its participants.

Making demonstrably false accusations that WG participants are trying to
hijack the Internet, trample on the national rights of governments, take
over control of ISO standards, and manipulate cultures is what is
hurtful.

Why don't you quote the e-mail in which Addison "describes his intent to
rule the future"?  Go ahead, I'll wait.

> - Addison describes his plan

Not just his.

> which is to make what he calls RFC 3066 bis/ter to more and more
> define a grammar, semantic, etc. So every version stays compatible
> with the previous one (but not the previous one with the new one).
> This has the advantage to get at the end of the day a very strict, may
> be clear (if there are not too many complexity to address the legacy
> of the previous RFCs), an probably stable system. I have no problem
> with this, except that I do not understand its use. But Addison says
> he needs it.

RFC 1766 and 3066 already defined a grammar and semantic.  The current
draft expands on this.

Lots of people need this, not just Addison personally, and not just the
W3C.  People have been saying this for over a year; you have chosen not
to listen or believe.

> - the problem is that he also wants to make his draft to replace RFC
> 3066, what will make it  ipso-facto the new BCP 47. BCP 47 is the
> current rule of the net in matter of languages.

In the matter of assigning short text strings to *represent* languages.
This is an important distinction.  None of this "tagging" activity has
anything to do with defining, authorizing, sanctioning, supporting, or
suppressing the languages themselves.  They are just symbols.

Why don't you go pick on Harald Alvestrand for trying to "rule the
future" back in 2001, when RFC 3066 was published and made a BCP?

> I do not see what can be abusive and personal in this???

Accusing Addison of trying to "rule the future" is abusive and personal.
He is doing his job as WG participant and co-editor of a WG document.

> This problem is the _only_ real problem of this Draft. It was
> documented at length by John Klensin, Dave Crocker and others during
> the last Last Call and will make the next Last Call fail.

We are supposed to be moving forward, not obsessing on last December.
But since you mention it, most of the criticism of the previous Last
Call that I heard, as a member of ietf-languages (where most of those
concerns were being aired), had to do with the fact that the document
wasn't created by a WG, and as such had no charter or chair or AD, and
thus no accountability and format review process.  Now we have all of
those things.

> This lack of understanding of the Internet standard process by W3C
> people can be easily shown. You go on Google and look for "W3C RFC
> 3066" (and RFC3066): there are 14,950 responses. If you enter the same
> "W3C BCP 47", you get 675 responses (0.5%). This means that people
> refer to the non-canonical version of what they want to say, and that
> they will have to update all of them if the Draft is approved. Would
> they have understood the Internet standard process document management
> system, they would have most probably used BCP as a BCP can be
> updated, not an RFC, and is therefore canonical.

It means that many more people on the Internet refer to RFC numbers than
to BCP numbers.

Criticizing and opposing our project is perfectly fine, and a normal
part of the process.  Accusing individuals of trying to take over the
world is absolutely uncalled for.

I am sure that there is some perfectly good reason why the co-chairs are
allowing this personal sniping and misrepresentation to continue
unchecked, but for the life of me I don't understand it.  It will
certainly make me think twice about volunteering to participate in
another IETF WG, and it may cause me to leave this one.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 12:56:11 -0700

Hi -

Jefsey has once again become too disruptive, engaging
in personal attacks, misrepresenting the positions of others,
revisiting long-resolved issues, and generally impeding timely
completion of our assigned task by causing other WG members
to waste time.

Pursuant to RFC 3934, I am suspending the posting
privileges of his subscribed addresses to the ltru WG
mailing list, for a period of up to 30 days. His posting
privileges will be restored no later than August third, 2005.

Randy, ltru co-chair

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 1:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: IANA ISO 3166 related Registries
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 01:06:49 -0700

Hi -

Our charter explicitly assigns to us the task of describing
"the structure of the IANA registry".  Consequently, registry
proposals that do not result in an IANA registry are out of order.

Randy, ltru co-chair