Re: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?

Hello Peter,

The group was indeed discussing type and scope and so on, but
Frank made it clear that he was looking at something else by
changing the Subject (the specific term 'bogus' is in my opinion
a bit unfortunate).

In my personal view, Frank is asking some rather stretched,
but in some sense valid question: If entries such as orq,
with existing documented texts of 30 words overall, can get
into ISO 639-3 (draft), then what guarantee, if any, does
ISO 629-3 (and therefore our subtag registry) have against
denial of service attacks where people make up new languages
with a little bit of text?

I'm sure you have a good answer to this question, and I'm
looking forward to see it.

Regards,     Martin.

At 06:59 06/10/11, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Peter Constable wrote:
>
>> Is it useful to know that orq is an individual, constructed language
>> and that that language is Orcish? Yes.
>
>alpha-3 is a finite set, if any language of 30 words gets its own code
>639-3 is in trouble, and the subtag registry with it.
>
>> Again, what is the point of these questions?
>
>Protecting the subtag registry from bogus entries while it's on a one
>way street (nothing ever removed) with a known end (26*26*26).
>
>> And explain to me how this is not a random attack on 639-3, since
>> that is certainly how it appears to me.
>
>Of course it's a random attack, I looked into the source, because John
>proposed to preserve its Language-Type info, and the "C" attracted my
>attention.  There are not many "C", and "orq" is one, and as it happens
>I thought (yesterday) I know what "orq" is about.  And today I'm sure.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     

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