RFC 3066 double Bis?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear Peter,
I observe the evolution of the ISO 639 documents (current status of 639-4, vote on 639-6), the RFC 3066 Bis was to integrate into the Internet best practices. This evolution goes my way (ex. ISO 11179 conformance). It will create interoperability issues with RFC 3066 Bis which has been documented against me. ISO 639 series document the language of/related to a content, and stay in ISO context. This does not address the needs of the Multilingual Internet. I think it is time we jointly start considering and advising an IETF position.

I see three possibilities:

1. a WG Multilingual Internet. It would gather the competences/culture the IETF needs to fulfill its RFC 3066 Bis born obligations. 2. to read the WG-LTRU charter towards an Internet (not a private) project. This would lead to a BCP 47 RFC "double Bis" framework project, an IETF equivalent to ISO 639-4. Other RFC could attach to it. 3. to publish an ION disregarding the RFC 3066 Bis registration management consensus, for an RFC 3066 + script.

I am neutral about the way your affinity group manages the Internationalized US Internet language (IDN.ASCII, internationalized LHS, IANA registries). My interest is in interoperability with the IGF/grassroots Multilingual Internet, to avoid balkanization. This calls for non confuse documents (as I obtained RFC 3066 Bis to be) being respected (not case of RFC 3066 Bis so far). I doubt you can oppose that minimum need.
jfc









_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]