We eventually reach the mission assigned by the Charter: the real
IANA registry. And we considering some of the key points:
1. is the directory to be published as an RFC?
2. is it or not to document the subtags ISO aliases?
3. is it to respect the Charter and the IESG authority in being
reviewed by ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and approved by its IESG
designated reviewer?
4. what is its expected growth? Should it be contained in size? Is it
informative or normative?
5. what is its practical purpose, in term of user applications? How
is it expected to be used?
6. what is its dissemination system?
7. who is going to insure that this system is sure, secure, stable
and who will bear the cost of it?
I am opposed that my approach is not in operations (cf. John):
AFRAC's role is to consider the various propositions and to test the
most appropriate ones for its own mission of a reference center. From
this (a) we know the main Draft proposition is very limited and
dangerous, (b) we know there are others possible propositions, with
their own con and pros (Addison explained he had one), (c) we observe
they should be correctly be supported by IRI-tags with RFC 3066 bis
as a default with no other change than to add one sentence: "0-
introduces an URI/IRI tag which conforms RFC [URI-tags]"]).
Going further without first a consensus on the target of the WG
(addressing user needs like ours vs. imposing on us an unique limited
solution) would only create confusion. Competition, as begged from us
by Addison, between standardisers and users is never good.
Now these simple, practical questions are put in front of the IESG.
IESG will turn me right or wrong. If they can think of a way to
deliver, with non limited and non constrained internationalisation
options, along with the proposed registry: no one will be more happy
than me. Otherwise the Internet standard process still gives chances
to a thinking maturation process, through IETF/IAB and external appeals.
To help that thinking we may have to stabilise and deploy a
grassroots project. But I am afraid then to trigger other projects by
industry leaders and Govs. They will see there a way to block a
Internet possible control and a way to obtain parts of it. But the
constant disregard of our needs as a user of the deliverable may
eventually push us to do that.
1. is it to be published as an RFC?
As an RFC it is the same base for all the common reference
centers, existing and to come, IANA or not. It preserves a point of
consensus. It permits RFC "bis", "ter" etc. to accompany ISO, usage
and RFC 3066nths evolution.
2. is it or not to document the subtags ISO aliases?
No to do so would underline the motivation of exclusiveness.
This would only add to confusion: users will see that registry as an
hybrid registry, randomly (on their opinion) using variable format
elements from ISO 639-1,2,3,5,6, from ISO 3166 and UN, from its own,
with no documented relation with the ISO codes they use in their
other applications. Search engines and Gov systems will align on ISO
11179 works and on ISO 639-4 guidelines. In defending for ever the
RFC 3066 errors, instead of correcting them progressively, what do we
want to do?
This is IETF, not a WTO arbitration.
3. is to respect the Charter and the IESG authority in being approved
by ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and its reviewer
I documented the need and the courtesy to have Michael Everson
and ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx to review and approve the soundness
and the consistency of the proposed registry content. It also
underline the script orientation of the Draft.
4. what is its expected growth? Should it be contained in size? Is it
informative or normative?
John documented the IETF/RFC's related difficulties if the
parameter registry goes large (I do not know if there is another
registry which can expand to 40.000 items?).
5. what is its practical purpose, in term of user applications? How
is it expected to be used?
This point is still pending.
6. what is its dissemination system?
This point is still pending - it will result from the above.The
only indication I got so far is "like Unicode". I indicated the
system we advocate.
7. who is going to insure that this system is sustained and who will
bear the cost if it?
I know this is not a main IETF concern. I submit it is because
the IANAI registries are usually not that size and do not risk to be
accessed by the XML applications by billions?
jfc
At 07:38 10/09/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
> From: "John.Cowan" <jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ltru@xxxxxxxx>; <iesg@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 7:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Last call comments on LTRU registry and
initializationdocuments
>
> John C Klensin scripsit:
>
> > So, all I was suggesting wrt the text of the "initial" document
> > is that, when the IESG concluded that it had reached community
> > consensus, two things should happen:
> >
> > (1) The IESG instructs IANA to create the registry,
> > populating it with the elements as instructed in the
> > Internet-Draft and using the formats specified there
> > and in the "registry" I-D.
>
> I think that's what we had in mind.
>
> > (2) The document is passed to the RFC Editor for
> > publication,
>
> It's not clear to me what the point of publishing it as an RFC is,
> and in fact if an explicit decision to that effect has been made,
> it went past me entirely.
>
> IMHO after initial-registry has served its purpose, it should be
> allowed to time out and die.
...
(As ltru co-chair)
Those who follow the ltru WG mailing list closely will recall that
there were two distinct issues recorded in the issue tracker:
(at https://rt.psg.com/ user and password are "ietf")
#875 should initial registry contents be made into an internet-draft?
#878 should the initial registry contents i-d be published as an RFC?
There was a rough consensus in support of #875, but the discussion
of #878 was inconclusive. We asked our AD whether he had any
preference with respect to #878, and he indicated a preference for
publication as an (informational) RFC.
That is how we got to where we are today.
The decision on #875 (initial registry as i-d) has in retrospect proven
to be a good one, in my personal opinion.
Regarding issue #878, I think we've all looked at it as just a matter of how
to work the process to get the right stuff into the registry. The working
group has been quite clear in wanting to ensure that the initial registry
is not mistaken for the registry itself, and was never enthusiastic about
publishing it as an RFC.
Consequently, I do not think that it would be a big problem if the
IESG were to tell the ltru WG that we don't need to publish the initial
registry i-d as an RFC, or if the WG, reconsidering issue #878 as a
result of the IETF last call comments were to reach a consensus to
withdraw the publication request, as long as we have some assurance
that the registry will be end up with the right stuff.
Sure, we would have wasted a lot of energy getting the initial registry i-d
RFC-ready, but the important thing is to initialize the registry. Process
is a tool, not an end in itself, and the result we are interested in is
getting the updated registry going, not publishing a history of its
initialization, as interesting as that might be.
The only problem I see is that the registry draft,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt,
currently references the initial registry i-d in multiple places; we'd need
someone to provide the correct incantation to make the right thing
happen. I can hardly imagine that a document (whether BCP
or some kind of Standard-to-be) would be permitted to reference
(even informatively) an i-d never intended for publication.
Please send suggested text.
Although my personal preference would be to publish the i-d
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-04.txt
as an Informational RFC, ideally marked "Historic" from
the first day it appears, I do not object to non-RFC alternatives
that let us accomplish the initialization, as long as we keep the
initialization data out of any container that would cause it to be
mistaken for the registry itself.
Randy, ltru co-chair
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf