|
RE: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred value for YU
2009-03-02 12:52:36
Hi Tex,
I don't think this is probably appropriate, at least for this list to consider.
1. You haven't posted to LTRU's mailing list, only ietf-languages@, yet.
2. Even if draft-4645bis is approved, the process for language tags (in either
RFC 4646 or its proposed successor) allow you to register the information you
want, if you think it was inappropriately omitted.
Addison
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 3:43 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 4
Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management Board:
Why? (Patrik F?ltstr?m)
2. draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred value for
YU (Tex Texin)
3. Terminal room at IETF74 (Dearlove, Christopher (UK))
4. Identity Services Beyond Web SSO (was RE: [TLS] TLS WG Chair
Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07) (Josh Howlett)
5. New IETF Journal available now (Volume 4, Issue 3) (Mirjam
Kuehne)
6. Re: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management Board:
Why? (Olaf Kolkman)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:23:10 +0100
From: Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management
Board:
Why?
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes(_dot_)Tschofenig(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net>, "Lynn
St.
Amour"
<st(_dot_)amour(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org>, Dave CROCKER
<dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>,
daigle(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <26D2ECC5-C77F-4449-BD9F-EDE6B551E1F7(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
DelSp="yes"
On 2 mar 2009, at 04.12, John C Klensin wrote:
I am not suggesting trying to undo this decision, but believe
that, as ISOC adds sufficient technically-qualified staff to
engage in activities like this on its own, we need to work,
collectively, on better ways to facilitate communication in a
timely basis in the future. In particular, we need to work
fairly hard to avoid a situation in which the IETF and ISOC end
up with different positions on an issue with external visibility
and consequences. To do so would damage the credibility of all
concerned.
This I completely agree with, we have to avoid such situations.
But we have to also to work hard on not to create a chicken out of
a
feather. Instead learn and do things even better next time.
Regarding Liberty Alliance, I think we should let Lucy coordinate
some
more information for the IETF that can be presented in due time. As
she said, she will (as well as I) be in San Francisco and we are
all
happy to talk.
Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090302/28633679/attachment.sig>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:05:18 -0800
From: "Tex Texin" <textexin(_at_)xencraft(_dot_)com>
Subject: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred value
for
YU
To: <ltru(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Message-ID: <005e01c99b16$0b00d700$21028500$(_at_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
With respect to the proposed update to the Language Subtag Registry
draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10:
I would like to lodge an objection to the deletion of the
Preferred-Value for language subtag YU.
This change breaks the equivalence class relation between YU and CS.
It detrimentally changes the behavior of existing implementations.
The loss of the relationship between YU and CS makes documents that
were believed to be tagged equivalently, to no longer be equivalent.
There is also no benefit to this change.
To be concrete, assume a user attempts to find documents for
languages from Yugoslavia.
Using the then current registry data, a query tool noting the
preferred value relationship, matches either xx-YU and xx-CS.
Another user searches for documents for Serbia.
A query tool using the current registry data noting the preferred
value relationship, matches either xx-YU and xx-CS.
The results are in some sense accurate and complete, given the
history of the subtag.
After this change in the preferred value relationship, the query
tool does not know to search for both xx-YU and xx-CS, since the
registry does not indicate a relationship. Only one or the other
subtag is used for each query. However, the query results are now
incomplete since some documents for xx-YU have been tagged with the
one-time preferred tag of xx-CS.
Comments in the registry are not a solution. Comments are a good
thing for recording rationale and tangential history. However,
implementers are not going to go thru and read the comments on any
or all tags in order to make a correct implementation. They are
going to implement based on the schema and operate with the data
values.
The registry should stay as it is with respect to YU and retain CS
as the preferred value.
As CS is now being used as a preferred value, deprecated or not,
there isn't a compelling motivation to remove the preferred value
for YU.
Please eliminate this needless change that breaks applications
relying on the relationship between YU and CS.
tex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090302/0249ec2d/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:04:21 -0000
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
<chris(_dot_)dearlove(_at_)baesystems(_dot_)com>
Subject: Terminal room at IETF74
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Message-ID:
<ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D019FDC02(_at_)GLKMS2100(_dot_)GREENLNK(_dot_)
NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I believe this to be on-topic for this list based on the
summary of on-topic subjects. However I don't see any
similar subjects recently, so apologies if there is a
batter place, and a pointer to it would be appreciated.
I have had it confirmed by the secretariat that the terminal
room at IETF 74 will not contain any machines, presumably
just network connections.
When I first attended an IETF meeting (IETF56) the terminal
room contained several machines, sometimes barely enough.
But over the years the number has declined, along I suspect
with their usage. There have been machine-free terminal rooms
in the past. As like most people I've brought a laptop, I
haven't monitored the situation closely.
But now, if I come to IETF74, I won't have a laptop with me.
Corporate policy, based on recent US legal decisions, is that
I may not take a laptop (or PDA etc.) into the USA. This is
not subject to modification. Obviously even a machine in the
terminal room would be a very poor second, but it seems even
that is out.
There are obviously broader issues regarding US meetings. But
I will limit myself here to the narrower issue, and to simply
bringing it to attention.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 Fax: +44 1245 242124
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
*******************************************************************
*
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
*******************************************************************
*
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:28:20 -0000
From: "Josh Howlett" <Josh(_dot_)Howlett(_at_)ja(_dot_)net>
Subject: Identity Services Beyond Web SSO (was RE: [TLS] TLS WG
Chair
Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07)
To: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes(_dot_)Tschofenig(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net>
Cc: Josh Howlett <Josh(_dot_)Howlett(_at_)ja(_dot_)net>,
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID:
<6ED388AA006C454BA35B0098396B9BFB04D9C7D2(_at_)uxsrvr20(_dot_)atlas(_dot_)uker
na.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Hannes,
Hans wrote:
Josh wrote:
Hans wrote:
Josh wrote:
I have a long list of applications, collected from within
this
community, with which they would like to use SAML-based
authorisation;
Interesting. Any interest to share it with us?
I'm in the process of trying to flesh it out at the moment, in
a collaboration with some of the communities concerned, so
that we can articulate some concrete use-cases. At the moment
the list covers pretty much everything that is presently used
in an Inter-Institutional context (AFS, SSH, VNC, RDP, SIP,
SMTP, NEA, ...).
Looking forward to see more about it.
http://www.terena.org/activities/tf-emc2/beyond_web/index.html
"The European academic community has found many use cases for
federated
digital identity in applications other than those accessible
through a
web browser. Going beyond the browser limits constitutes a
fundamental
requirement to fulfill the promise of Identity Management in
simplifying
service administrators' tasks and enhancing the user experience."
All are welcome to participate providing there's an R&E angle,
however
flimsy and contrived ;-)
best regards, josh.
JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company
limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11
0SG
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:42:19 +0100
From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org>
Subject: New IETF Journal available now (Volume 4, Issue 3)
To: ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <20090302114219(_dot_)GB1148(_at_)hilde(_dot_)local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Hello,
The new issue of the IETF Journal - Volume 4, Issue 3 - is now
available at http://ietfjournal.isoc.org
You can read this publication online or choose to download the full
issue in PDF format. You can also keep up to date with the latest
issue of the IETF Journal by subscribing to one of our RSS or Atom
feeds.
For comments or suggestions, please do not hesiate to contact us at
ietfjournal(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org(_dot_)
Kind Regards,
Mirjam Kuehne
Internet Society
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:43:25 +0100
From: Olaf Kolkman <olaf(_at_)NLnetLabs(_dot_)nl>
Subject: Re: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management
Board:
Why?
To: IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes(_dot_)Tschofenig(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net>, Dave
Crocker
<dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>, "Lynn St.Amour"
<st(_dot_)amour(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org>
Message-ID: <58F58F15-9F84-48C8-BAB9-3BA5F4B590D1(_at_)NLnetLabs(_dot_)nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed";
DelSp="yes"
On 1 mrt 2009, at 23:49, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
PS. Re: your side note below on the makeup of the ISOC Board,
we'll
update the list to show the community or mechanism that appoints/
elects Trustees. In the meantime, the IETF appoints 3 Trustees
(out of 13, 12 voting and me non-voting). The current IETF
appointees to the ISOC Board are: Patrik F?ltstr?m, Ted Hardie
and
Bert Wijnen.
Also note that the IAB is to select a new IETF appointee. See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-
announce/current/msg05771.html
for the list of nominees.
--Olaf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090302/35c108b2/attachment.sig>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
End of Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 4
***********************************
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|