IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> Wed, 31 August 2005 02:14 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAI7C-0003eV-IN; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:14:14 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAI79-0003dq-9H for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:14:12 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24371 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:14:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns4a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.138] helo=ns4.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EAI8n-000555-Ai for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:15:54 -0400
Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D696299FF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:14:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marty.blilly.com (marty.blilly.com [192.168.99.98] (may be forged)) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j7V2DxpA016849(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com /etc/sendmail.mc.mail 1.26 2005/06/24 20:47:59) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:13:59 -0400
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j7V2Dxwx016848(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.3 2005/04/08 12:29:31) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:13:59 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com>
Organization: Bruce Lilly
To: ietf@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:13:56 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <4amb37$aq8r8o@mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net>
In-Reply-To: <4amb37$aq8r8o@mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200508302213.56775@mail.blilly.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

>  Date: 2005-08-28 20:33
>  From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>

> The problem are:
[...]
> - the lack of alternative (are we sure there are no other 
> architectural way to address the same need without information leak)

I think the answer is "yes".  For tagging of content, there is no "leak",
only information -- that is the entire point of the tag.  For negotiation,
there necessarily has to be some exchange of information ("I prefer X").

> - the lack of encryption

See above re. the necessity of information exchange.  TLS is available to
protect against eavesdropping.

> - the "spam" aspect: I am imposed to receive the langtag.

You can of course ignore it if you wish.  I also fail to understand how
you can be opposed to a language tag as "spam" yet at the same time
apparently wish to compound the amount of "spam" by including icons,
dictionaries, timestamps, etc.  

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email