I am sorry to impose that kind of response - and a large number of
mails. But this shows the problem to protect an open R&D capacity
against a chapel, which as some good points. And a non-profit R&D
against people sharing in a commercial competing consortium.
At 02:05 29/08/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
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.
Correct.
I do not see the need of all the innuendo above to repeat what I quoted.
> - "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.
This repeated allusion to the Charter neither refering nor alluding
to ISO 639-6 is to be compared with the text of the Charter
(http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html) which says "It is
also expected to provide mechanisms to support the evolution of the
underlying ISO standards, in particular ISO 639-3".
This kind of problem may be related to the refusal of the WG to start
from/analyse the Charter requirments?
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 do not know if I share concerns with Doug. I do share the concerns of Doug.
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.
Since I said I supported his Draft ....
> 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.
Correct. This is exactly what I say.
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.
This is an interesting idea: because I disagree that a general
registration procedure is documented in the same document as a
specific format (but I propose to address the point in considering it
as the default format) ... I would support the idea to pass to others
what one does not know to address.
I note that this has been done with much success in the IDNA case.
> 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.
Doug said in another mail "I just think the two figures (7,600 and
20,000) could be seen as representing a fundamental disagreement."
This is a legitimate concern at a time a LC is to engage the whole
IETF in a direction where you think this is unclear. I would not
qualify that of ust "talk". This is something loyalty calls you to
say, even if it is to explain why there is no fundamental disagreement.
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.)
See remark above on the Charter.
NB. As a user, the langtag solution does not provide as much
possibilities, simplicity, flexibility than solutions using ISO 639-6
(with the possible use of ISO 639-1/2/3 when necessary. This is IETF not ISO.
> 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.
I have documented enough (too much :-)) during these last days that I
support (one can read my mails of end of December 2004) the Draft
with the provision it is not exclusive and serves the Internet
community rather than exclude its R&D and innovation capacity.
I make no mistery that I proposed or opposed some points, knowing
that some persons, in particular the authors of the Drafts, would
oppose them. This permitted to have a very clear/protected ABNF we
can now use as a default, without risk of pollution from other
specific sub-formats.
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.)
Happily I support my Unicode co-Member Doug's own Draft and I thanked
him for the work he consciensiously achieved over the months
maintaining the base he now proposes as a Draft! (even if I doubt a
740 pages I-D can be of real use in the future).
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf