addressing WG/BCP/tags issue [was: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...]

Dear Bruce,
I changed the subject as the referred case only shown different network 
architecture confusions. Positively addressing this confusions will help 
more the solution of the case at hand than anything else.
On 01:42 12/01/2005, Bruce Lilly said:
> The language-tag reviewer has also recently noted his displeasure with the 
> general discussion.  Again, setting up an IETF WG with its own mailing 
> list would address that problem well as the ones noted above.
Obviously a formal WG with a formal Charter approved by the IESG and 
reviewed by the IAB (I detail so John Klensin is happy) is the best (I 
would say "only" if there must be relations with W3C) solution. The 
organization of such a WG is to follow the BCP 025 rules (RFC 2418).
This means that your mail starts on the general list the debate on a new 
WG. But we are to be careful in not proposing an inadequate WG which would 
increase confusion. The ietf-language(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no list has for several 
years carried well a job in a WG like fashion. Since the competence of the 
authors cannot be questioned, the "mess" probably shows that the problem 
was with its charter and in the resulting pattern of aggregated competences 
(see below). In a private mail copied to the Application Area Directors I 
have suggested a WG which would scale the particular langtag problem to the 
general issue of consistent a tagging in protocols, procedures, services 
and applications, to a WG-Tags. This would not remove 
ietf-language(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no the custody of the RFC 3066 (bis) langtags they 
shown they know to govern well.
My rationales are that:

1. we are in a typical case described by RFC 2418 Part 2.3 first 
paragraph  ("Proposed working groups often comprise technically competent 
participants who are not familiar with the history of Internet architecture 
or IETF processes. This can, unfortunately, lead to good working group 
consensus about a bad design."). IMHO the WG set-up process should be 
enough to make authors feeling the minor (yet blocking) points to correct.
2. the real blocking factor is that the proposed solution does not scale 
(it is OK for a user to chose in a menu, not for independent web services 
negotiating a common interinteligibility through commonly identified 
identical language dictionary, semantic, locale, defaults, etc.). IMHO this 
both will be the same in other areas than languages, and comes from the 
lack of a generalized tagging concept, semantic, filtering language, 
multilingualization rules and tools, libraries, tables, icons, etc.
Once such a WG starts working langtags could be taken as a first example 
and benefit from a more generalized and innovative support, rather then 
being challenged (at everyone cost and delay) by a universal cultural 
ontology including a language (arts, music, publishing, icon, soundex, 
period, authors, etc.) tagging semantic.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf