Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt

"Randy Presuhn" <> Wed, 16 December 2009 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E343A67B0 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:43:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.74
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5wi-6Wa8wbfJ for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:43:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66363A6813 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:43:52 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=df7Wn2Meh0VKD2ZSPhcsQzTYgW4jOQLINBRoclyvEQo2y85vOnoC0fys/IN2TfDO; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=oemcomputer) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1NKnbc-0001DL-Iu for; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:43:28 -0500
Message-ID: <001d01ca7e1b$4a6796c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <>
References: <012a01ca7c75$07aa4e60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:44:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888494b88d665f13b4013325228dd52b90cec7f90129d33acd5350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:43:54 -0000

Hi -

> From: "John Cowan" <>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt
> This effort seems singularly pointless and duplicative, since these
> Pronouncing Alphabets are just romanization systems, and we already
> register those as variant subtags.
> Is there any IETF-ly organizational method of discouraging this?

My suggestion would be to engage directly with the authors,
and to perhaps request use cases (for potential inclusion in
the document) to clarify whether these are in fact "just romanization
systems", and whether a (select subset of) language tags could
provide the same functionality or not.  It's really important to
get clarification (and to make the draft clear) about this point.

(FWIW, I don't see why a pronouncing alphavet would *necessarily*
be a romanization system.)

The next point of input would be to alert an Area Diretor (e.g.
Alexey Melnikov) so that the IESG would be aware of potential
concerns, particularly potential overlap with existing IETF BCP.