Hi -
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an
IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)
...
Some members are linguists by training, and the WG includes experts in
internationalization.
Yes. But we are missing experts in networking, Internet standard process,
multilingualism, national cultures, LDAP, standard document witing. This is
a actually complex issue (mix of lingual subjective and
networking/standardisation precise issues).
More untruths. The working group's members include Harald Alvestrand, and
John Klensin, to name a few who know something about the Internet standard
process. I think working group member Kurt Zeilenga is adequately qualified on
LDAP issues. Both of the co-chairs have served as editors of multiple RFCs,
as have several of the WG members. Some of us also have experience editing
ISO and ITU standards, and some members have experience in the W3C or the
Unicode Consortium, to name just a few. I suppose WG members like
James Seng might have something to say on "multilingualism" and "national
cultures" as would both co-chairs (both living in multi-cultural, multi-lingual
households), if those discussions were relevant to the mechanics of
the syntax and registration of tags for the identification of languages.
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.
...
The ltru WG consensus was to not delay our work in order to align with ISO
11179.
This is unfortunately a self-evaluation of the WG current consensus
process ... I say this because the WG charter says "[the Dratf/WG] is also
expected to provide mechanisms to support the evolution of the underlying
ISO standards". The ISO 639-6 and ISO 639-4 persons (present on the list)
explained these two standards will comply with ISO 11179. ISO 639-4 defines
the guidelines for all the language standards used by the WG. This
consensus therefore opposes the charter (but if the Draft does not want to
be BCP 47, this is IMHO acceptable, but must be discussed).
...
Providing support for the evolution of the underlying standards does not
require conformance (whatever that might mean) to ISO 11179, any
more than it means we should use the same word processor used to
edit the ISO documents.
Randy, ltru co-chair
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf