IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] ISO 639-6 and LTRU continuation

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Tue, 10 March 2009 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB743A698D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9fWMyjJ8Ey9W for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5649F3A676A for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=qpJpP36IpQ/0Kn1x4zmqDgEB0BrBKgXZszudBf4MtBGDhq5WMwSBD5dM0NNiTKuf; 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 [69.3.146.199] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1LhAhj-0005xZ-9P for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:45:43 -0400
Message-ID: <001401c9a1d2$1076e040$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <20090310093127.GB2850@nic.fr> <003b01c9a1ab$7eacc060$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20090310184601.GD7167@mercury.ccil.org> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA019E622691@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <20090310200354.GE7167@mercury.ccil.org> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA019E6227EF@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <20090310203717.GF7167@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:46:33 -0700
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: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8886924630f8852f1738883d2b4a9f7db707fdb8dc0e47a16bb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 69.3.146.199
Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO 639-6 and LTRU continuation
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:45:12 -0000

Hi -

> From: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
> To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
> Cc: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>; "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO 639-6 and LTRU continuation [was: Geocoordinates]
...
> > But I speculate recklessly. Since it seems pretty easy to create an
> > IETF WG, I guess the real question is whether the chairs, AD, and such
> > would want to maintain a moribund group for a year or so while this
> > standard bakes instead of just creating a new one at the appropriate
> > juncture. Or it 639-6 that close?
> 
> IIRC, it's in FDIS (Final Draft International Standard) state, so about
> as close as we are.
...

As a technical contributor...
Truly supporting the concept of collections would require some serious
work on an update to RFC 4647, among other things.  I think we'd want
to see some serious use cases and requirements from the protocol
community before rechartering / spinning up a new WG.  How would
these be employed in existing IETF protocols?  Do any new protocol
proposals require this facility?  I would not support the idea of keeping
a WG around until we figured out how we were going to use such things.

As co-chair...
Those interested in pursuring further work should prepare a charter update
(with clearly identified deliverables and dates) for discussion.  Expect to be
asked whether we're past the point of diminishing returns.  Iff there is
(rough) consensus in support of that proposal, we can ask our AD to take
it to the IESG.   If not, we'll wrap up the WG after our current deliverables
are published as RFCs, probably with a recommendation to leave the
mailing list active. 

Randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email