ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

2005-06-28 08:41:41
At 14:37 28/06/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
1) The language tag reviewer (a designated expert) rejected the tag "es-americas" after due debate on the ietf-languages mailing list. (Debate led to the same functionality now being registered as "es-419". That namespace also allows for use of "x-" names.)

Thanks, Harald, some laugh in that tense debate is welcome. Let me give others some more documented details to add to your support of Robert Elz and Dr. Roberts.

1. it is worse: the language tag reviewer designated expert (for apparently a permanent mandate) _accepted_ the tag but was reprimanded for that (by who?). (cf. below)

2. this concerned list (ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no) is not an IETF list, but an Harald Alvestrand's private mailing list. At least this what Harald told me, to be able to ban me, without proper procedure, AD protection and appeal possibilities RFC 3494 would have granted me. I must say that, among others, I demand for months that list to be set-up as a IANA mailing list it is to be (RFC 3066) with all the publicity, IANA access and decorum the matter requires;. In the process I may have trolled a little bit to trap Harald in acknowledging the situation :-). Everything is on-line.

3. Heaven thank's more that list is not IETF: it does not respect the RFC 3066 procedures. An approval requires a 15 days discussion on the list. In the es-419 case it was reduced to 4 days, by fed-up of the Prince (cf. below). BTW "-419" would only be permitted by the twice Last Call failed non yet introduced RFC 3066 bis. Still alive with its concerning doctrine unchanged, now as part of the WG-ltru work.

4. everyone knows that for a long IETF has joined ITU and adopted the UN system. So everyone knows that "419" comes from M.49 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm which is the Harald's replacement for Jon Postel's RFC 1591 which selected ISO 3166. This is why ".us" has now become ".840". Also everyone agrees "Americas" was is ambiguous term: so the expert selected "419" which stands for "Latin America and Caribbean" instead of "019" which stands for ... "Americas". This means that for the IESG/IANA the USA have no New Mexico state (cf. below).

In case you think I am kidding, here is the Expert's statement which promulgates "es-419":

<quote>
I approved the tag assuming it has gone through the mill enough. I approved "es-americas" a while ago and was growled at for that. I am not interested in pissing off the IANA lass who deals with our stuff for no good reason. I've approved it, I don't believe that ANYONE is going to come up with a convincing reason to disapprove it, and the idea of formally withdrawing the approval for 11 days and then doing it again doesn't really thrill me.

And New Mexico can live with 419, for heaven's sake.
</quote>

In case you want to share in this exciting list, you just have to register in sending a mail to:
<mailto:ietf-languages-request(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no?subject=subscribe> .

The review of the management of the IANA langtag registry is subject to the work of the WG-ltru. http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html Let me make some outreach for this important WG for the image of the IETF in the international community, in an area where Culture Ministries, academic people and ccTLD Managers, GAC Members, etc. are very concerned, their language, culture and to some extent their economy are involved. I note we are only two there having not English as a mother language, what is not enough to provide the WG with the necessary diversity. FYI there are 7500 languages listed in the ISO 639 list under final preparation by Peter Constable. And 20.000 in the ISO 639-6 list to follow. It is worth noting that the integration of ISO 639 for languages and ISO 15924 for scripts (however difficult the definition of what they represent and for who [author, reader of both]) are building blocks of the Multilingual Internet I documented yesterday and obviously for the multimedia/multimode/multitechnology convergence.

The consistency with ISO 11179 (Registries continuity) and the work IETF should carry in that area, is precisely what would prevent cases like the HBH case and determine how such parameters should be recorded and where. One understands that in front of 20.000 equal by right and equally cherished languages by those speaking them, one cannot continue to speak of a unique authoritative entity in the same way as when the Legacy was the few ASCII machines of an US academic project. We have to ensure technical end to end interoperability. We also have to manage person to person interintelligibility within 20.000 and far more, cultural spaces of exchanges, trust and services. Either we do it, or some others will decide. The committing decisions will be taken in Tunis.

This will decide of a catastrophic Internet split, balkanisation or pulverisation as I discussed it yesterday, or to a productive concerted partitioning organised in continuity.
jfc


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



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>