Date: 2004-12-21 00:57
From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell(_at_)adelphia(_dot_)net>
To: ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
The RFC 3066bis approach involves creating a registry of all the pieces
that can make, or be combined to make, a language tag. This is much
easier to implement and understand than chasing down the various
standards and their history, and it permits stability that cannot exist
if ISO maintenance agencies change their codes.
Substituting a Numbers Authority for a Maintenance Agency
might not solve the problem; indeed it may bring new problems.
IANA isn't infallible, and has botched some registry entries.
See http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/msg01477.html
for an example.
Vernon Schryver [...] characterized debating RFC 3066bis (for over a year!)
within the IETF-Languages group, and only presenting it to other groups
during the Last Call period, as a "process problem,"
OK.
and charged this
group with engaging in "lawyerly talk such as whether 'accounts' is more
appropriate than 'account'" even though no such exchange ever took place
(I checked the archives back to January 2002).
No, he was referring to concurrent discussions on the
IETF mailing list.
Now Bruce wants us to wait a few more days before rolling out his
suggestions to fix these perceived problems.
This is a filibuster, an attempt to stall RFC 3066bis out of existence.
I also (i.e. in addition to JFC) find that characterization
offensive. I am responding to an IETF New Last Call in
accordance with established procedures, and within the time
period established. I had at one time entertained an
informal approach to addressing the procedural issues, but
given such an accusation, I am now inclined to use the
formal procedure outlined in RFC 2026 section 6.5.2.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf