Dear Peter,
I observe the evolution of the ISO 639 documents (current status of
639-4, vote on 639-6), the RFC 3066 Bis was to integrate into the
Internet best practices. This evolution goes my way (ex. ISO 11179
conformance). It will create interoperability issues with RFC 3066
Bis which has been documented against me. ISO 639 series document the
language of/related to a content, and stay in ISO context. This does
not address the needs of the Multilingual Internet. I think it is
time we jointly start considering and advising an IETF position.
I see three possibilities:
1. a WG Multilingual Internet. It would gather the
competences/culture the IETF needs to fulfill its RFC 3066 Bis born
obligations.
2. to read the WG-LTRU charter towards an Internet (not a private)
project. This would lead to a BCP 47 RFC "double Bis" framework
project, an IETF equivalent to ISO 639-4. Other RFC could attach to it.
3. to publish an ION disregarding the RFC 3066 Bis registration
management consensus, for an RFC 3066 + script.
I am neutral about the way your affinity group manages the
Internationalized US Internet language (IDN.ASCII, internationalized
LHS, IANA registries). My interest is in interoperability with the
IGF/grassroots Multilingual Internet, to avoid balkanization. This
calls for non confuse documents (as I obtained RFC 3066 Bis to be)
being respected (not case of RFC 3066 Bis so far). I doubt you can
oppose that minimum need.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf