JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote: > I started documenting some of the problems resulting from the > expected size of the language tag registry and the capacity of the > langtag solution to fulfill the WG-ltru Charter. Here are two inputs > from the author of the Draft above on the WG-ltru list, Doug Ewell: > > - "I've already built a hypothetical RFC 3066ter registry. The > changes alone add up to 35,700 lines, or more than 740 pages in RFC > format. It might reopen the question of whether an I-D is the best > vehicle for delivering this amount of information to IANA." Some of you who have not had the joy of witnessing this sort of gross misrepresentation on LTRU over the past eight months might be a bit confused. At no time did I ever say, or imply, or MEAN, that the eventual size of the registry would be a problem in and of itself, nor that the solution developed by the LTRU WG would not fulfill the charter. What I said, as anyone can see from reading the quote above, is that a 740-page I-D might be unwieldy enough that the IETF might consider a different procedural mechanism for delivering the information to IANA. > - "I still have significant concerns about the assumption that ISO > 639-6 will be, or should be, automatically integrated into a language > tagging scheme. [snip] Meanwhile, the claim that there are "over > 20,000 languages" to be tagged is being used as an argument against > the current RFC 3066bis effort and the plan to support 7,600 languages > in RFC 3066ter." Since the charter neither refers nor alludes to ISO 639-6, there is no conflict with the charter if WG members disagree in regard to the *eventual* expansion of the scope of language tags to involve ISO 639-6. The argument against the RFC 3066bis effort on the basis of the asserted existence of "20,000 languages" is attributable to M. Morfin alone. He is not being truthful in saying that he does not oppose the draft; he has spent the entire lifetime of the LTRU WG, and before, shouting his opposition from the rooftops. > I fully share the concerns of Doug Ewell. M. Morfin does not share any concerns with me, except to the extent he can twist my words to mean something I do not intend. I hereby disassociate myself with any statements made by M. Morfin concerning the drafts produced by the LTRU WG. I hope that is clear enough for IETF members. > 2. the documented upgrade enlarge the size from 80 K (11.5 K zipped) > to 650 K (100 K zipped). This information, updates and additions MUST > be available to each of the on-line application of the devices of > billions of users. The Draft does not explain how. The WG decided this was an IANA implementation issue, and out of scope. Clearly, if some consider it wrong to specify both a registry format and a registration procedure within the same draft, it would be that much worse to dictate to IANA how it should manage its resources. > 2. One of the author has _legitimate_ concerns about the capacity of > the proposition and the reasonability of the Charter expectation to > support the ISO 639-6 evolution of the underlying ISO standards. Any talk within the LTRU WG regarding ISO 639-6 is just that: talk. There is no charter requirement to support ISO 639-6. (There *is* a charter requirement to begin paving the way for support of ISO 639-3, and we have addressed that requirement within the limitation that ISO 639-3 is still not an approved standard.) > But he is wrong is in assuming that I use this as an argument against > the current RFC 3066bis effort. To the contrary, I use it for a an > argument to support the proposed Draft as default solution and > support extensions and practical information distribution through > other adapted solutions introduced by a singleton. I invite any interested IETF member to peruse the WG archives, and judge for himself whether M. Morfin supports the draft or not. Since there are no detectable RFC 3683 or 3934 constraints on M. Morfin's right to post anything he likes, I expect the usual scathing personal attack in response. (Don't bother sending it to me personally; I do have a Blocked Senders list.) -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf