Subject: [Ltru] confusing laspus calami

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:39:19 +0100

Dear Scott, Randy and Martin,
I note from different debates, there is a rising confusion between:

- the RFC 3066 registration process and the RFC 3066 Bis Language 
Subtag and Extensions Registries,
- the Language Tag Reviewer appointed by the Application AD and the 
Language Subtag Reviewer appointed by the IESG
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi assigns the 
purpose of "Review of language tag registrations, and language tag 
issues. See RFC 3066." to the [email-masked] mailing 
list. It does not assigns it any role in language subtag and 
extension registration and language subtag and tag extension registries issues.

This confusion opposes the consensus of this WG-LTRU, leads to a IANA 
matrix inappropriate description, legitimates a bitterness which is 
detrimental to the whole effort of this WG and to the image of its 
created IANA registries. I track this confusion in particular to the 
very page header of RFC 3066 Bis. Over the years of preparation of 
RFC 3066 Bis it became common to refer to the "languages tags" as 
"langtags" and to the RFC 3066 IANA registration as "Language Tag 
Registry" (a term not used in RFC 3066) or to "langtags-registry". 
This may explain the lapsus calami no one noticed in the RFC 3066 Bis 
page header: "langtags-registy" should be 
"langtags-subtag-(and-extension?)-registy".

I do not know how this lapsus can be corrected. But what was 
presented as a "typo" has been changed. I therefore formally 
introduce the request of the correction of this obvious lapsus.
jfc

NB. I also trace the confusion in the enforcement of a Draft by the 
IANA, by-passing the normal completion of the Internet standard 
process cycle. We all know the kind, the origin and the reasons of 
pressures (now applied to the IESG itself) which lead to this, when 
the IANA strived to better efficiency under a new Director. I can 
only blame them and regret their consequences.

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:14:01 +0100

Dear Scott,
I am sorry to be obliged to introduce another appeal.

I submitted a formal request to have an RFC 3066 Bis lapsus calami to 
be corrected on Feb. 11th, 2006.

1. the text of that mail is attached.
2. I did not even receive an acknowledgment.
2. the confusion introduced mares the WG-LTRU consensual RFC 3066 Bis 
application process, resulting in confusion by the IESG (Chair, AD, 
Members) and propositions opposing the RFC 3066 Bis text. For this 
reason I copy the IESG list.

Thank you for your consideration of this much needed and urgent correction.
jfc

At 19:39 11/02/2006, r&d afrac wrote:
>This confusion opposes the consensus of this WG-LTRU, leads to a 
>IANA matrix inappropriate description, legitimates a bitterness 
>which is detrimental to the whole effort of this WG and to the image 
>of its created IANA registries. I track this confusion in particular 
>to the very page header of RFC 3066 Bis. Over the years of 
>preparation of RFC 3066 Bis it became common to refer to the 
>"languages tags" as "langtags" and to the RFC 3066 IANA registration 
>as "Language Tag Registry" (a term not used in RFC 3066) or to 
>"langtags-registry". This may explain the lapsus calami no one 
>noticed in the RFC 3066 Bis page header: "langtags-registy" should 
>be "langtags-subtag-(and-extension?)-registy".
>

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:31:02 -0500

The request of this appeal appears to be a challenge to the page header
found in this document:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt

The header text in question is the "langtags-registry" abbreviation.

The title of this document is "Tags for Identifying Languages".  The
abstract further states:

"This document describes the structure, content, construction, and
semantics of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to
indicate the language used in an information object.  It also
describes how to register values for use in language tags and the
creation of user defined extensions for private interchange."

I find that the current abbreviation is consistent with both the title of
the document and the text that describes its purpose.  Appeal denied.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: r&d afrac [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:14 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck; Martin Duerst; Randy Presuhn
> Cc: Martin Duerst; Randy Presuhn; LTRU Working Group; [email-masked]
> Subject: appeal to AD 
> 
> Dear Scott,

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:18:24 +0100

Dear IESG Members,
A confusion develops over the implementation of RFC 3066 Bis. This 
confusion leads to a probable disrespect of the WG-LTRU consensus and 
IESG approbation. I opposed the RFC 3066 Bis "built-in" confusion and 
the resulting harm I foresaw to the community and I observed to my 
own work. With pains a consensus has resulted into a rather clearer 
and structured document I can survive.

However a laspus calami, I asked in vain the Chairs and the AD to 
correct, introduces new confusions. I am now paradoxally to defend 
the WG-LTRU and Ithe ESG 15/11/2005 decision against those who 
engaged a PR-action against me for having suposedly disrupted its 
building consensus process, while I actually lead it (may be this why 
they do not want to respect the text we eventually agreed).

The impact of that confusion is such that, if was not corrected, I 
would have to appeal to the IAB in fully documenting the issue. This 
means that I would have to introduce the language naming system 
experimental registry, and its IETF oriented 
[email-masked] preparation and management mailing list in 
annex of my appeal.

1. I introduced a request to correct a damaging laspsus calami. At 

>only blame them and regret their consequences.

2. Having no reply I had to appeal the AD. Sent: Monday, February 20, 
2006 10:14 AM

>I submitted a formal request to have an RFC 3066 Bis lapsus calami 
>to be corrected on Feb. 11th, 2006.
>
>3. the confusion introduced mares the WG-LTRU consensual RFC 3066 Bis

3. I received the following decision: at 6:31 20/02/2006, Scott 
Hollenbeck wrote:

>The request of this appeal appears to be a challenge to the page 
>header found in this document:

Correct.

>I find that the current abbreviation is consistent with both the 
>title of the document and the text that describes its purpose.  Appeal denied.
>-Scott-

The document describes two things:

1. a language tag system to indicate the language used in an 
information object.
2. the registries (plural) to be used in forming the tags of this system.
None is a single "langtags-registry".

This means that RFC 3066 Bis _obsoletes_ the RFC 3066 IANA Language 
tags Registry. And creates 2 new Registries.

The IANA numbers.html where all the concerned Registries are to be 
listed, now includes accordingly:

<quote>
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags>Language Tags - 
OBSOLETE RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt No further registrations in 
this registry.
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tag-apps.htm>Language Tags 
Directory - OBSOLETE RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt No further 
registrations in this registry.
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry>Language 
Subtag Registry RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt Expert Review (Michael Everson)
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tag-extensions-registry>Language 
Tag Extensions Registry
</quote>

We are now in a situtation where :

- the RFC 3066 Bis documents tells it is is about an OBSOLETE registry,

- the IANA respects the RFC 3066 Bis text and creates a "Language 
Subtag Registry" and a "Language Tag Extensions Registry" (as per RFC 
3066 Bis which secifies that "languuage tags extensions" are made of 
language tags and of subtag extensions),

- the IETF Chair confuses the two different ietf-languages mailing 
lists (the [email-masked] one to support the OBSOLETE 
Registry, the [email-masked] one to support the new registries),

- everyone confuses the obsolete registry Language Tag Reviewer and 
the new Language Subtag and Tag Extension Registres Language Subtag Reviewer.

- this confusion extends to the Obsoleted Registry Language Tag 
Reviewer who still discuss the mission of Language Tag Reviewer when 
proposed the mission of Language Subtag Reviewer. He is obviously not 
aware that the subtags do not really involve languages (except as 
already approved or reviewed by ISO) nor scripts (except as already 
approved or reviewed by himself as ISO 15924 author). It also seems 
that he has not realised that the new Registries would jump from 72 
in 10 years to several tens of thousands items in one to three years.

- the Area Director finds consistent the abbreviation at the origin 
of this confusion.

These issues are very serious for the text and contents industries 
and the Internet economic model.
I object his humour or his decision.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:02:59 -0800

Hi -

Since the key points jfc mentions here have previously been dealt with
by the WG, and no one else seems to understand the grounds for
confusion, I believe further response is a waste of time.
If the IESG would like clarification on any specifics, please let
Martin and me know.

Randy, ltru co-chair

P.S.  I believe he meant to write "lapsus calami", even though that obscure
term would hardly be appropriate even if the text in question were in error.

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "'Martin Duerst'" <[email-masked]>; "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email-masked]>; "'LTRU Working Group'"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:18 AM
> Subject: RE: appeal to IESG against AD decision: one must clear the confusion opposing the RFC 3066 Bis consensus.
>
> Dear IESG Members,

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:22:05 +0100

>confusion, I believe further response is a waste of time.

Dear Randy,
As the co-Chair of our WG you thinks adequate to tag the RFC we 
produced from with the name of the Registry we closed. Interesting.

We can all observe that some understand the grounds for confusion and 
take advantage from it. You, yourself, just sent a mail on 
[email-masked] calling for WG-LTRU issues to be treated 
on WG-LTRU, for a thread started in considering an RFC 3066 Bis 
registration. (I note that all these mails are off-topic for that 
list, but that the administrator is indifferent).

>P.S.  I believe he meant to write "lapsus calami", even though that 
>obscure term would hardly be appropriate even if the text in 
>question were in error.

Correct. There is a lapsus calami in my writing. I apologise.

Qualifying as obscure such a common (126 000 entries in Google) term 
seems inappropriate in a leading language oriented arena. Please 
remember that RFC 3066 Bis makes the IESG the world appeal reference 
in linguistic matters for the Internet, but in fact well beyond.
jfc