Subject: RFC 3066 double Bis?

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:15:10 +0200

Dear Peter,
I observe the evolution of the ISO 639 documents (current status of 
639-4, vote on 639-6), the RFC 3066 Bis was to integrate into the 
Internet best practices. This evolution goes my way (ex. ISO 11179 
conformance). It will create interoperability issues with RFC 3066 
Bis which has been documented against me. ISO 639 series document the 
language of/related to a content, and stay in ISO context. This does 
not address the needs of the Multilingual Internet. I think it is 
time we jointly start considering and advising an IETF position.

I see three possibilities:

1. a WG Multilingual Internet. It would gather the 
competences/culture the IETF needs to fulfill its RFC 3066 Bis born 
obligations.
2. to read the WG-LTRU charter towards an Internet (not a private) 
project. This would lead to a BCP 47 RFC "double Bis" framework 
project, an IETF equivalent to ISO 639-4. Other RFC could attach to it.
3. to publish an ION disregarding the RFC 3066 Bis registration 
management consensus, for an RFC 3066 + script.

I am neutral about the way your affinity group manages the 
Internationalized US Internet language (IDN.ASCII, internationalized 
LHS, IANA registries). My interest is in interoperability with the 
IGF/grassroots Multilingual Internet, to avoid balkanization. This 
calls for non confuse documents (as I obtained RFC 3066 Bis to be) 
being respected (not case of RFC 3066 Bis so far). I doubt you can 
oppose that minimum need.
jfc

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