Hi - > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf