Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Fri, 08 July 2011 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C8B21F85C6 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.732
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.867, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zu3Wo3pAh7am for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net (145.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0AF21F85AA for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ICTPC ([92.28.116.69]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:52:11 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: "'Phillips, Addison'" <addison@lab126.com>, "'Doug Ewell'" <doug@ewellic.org>, <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <20110708075525.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.e096f74976.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <08c601cc3d81$b9370cd0$2ba52670$@co.uk> <08ca01cc3d89$52219c10$f664d430$@co.uk> <131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC3476A941CB696@EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC3476A941CB696@EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:53:19 +0100
Message-ID: <090601cc3da0$4e424790$eac6d6b0$@co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: Acw9fzNvTmKyUnWJQrOBDmYo6GVsOAAAlH1AAAHhltAAAJDGoAAFPHrg
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:52:06 -0000

Thanks for the clarification Addison

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison@lab126.com] 
Sent: 08 July 2011 17:32
To: Debbie Garside; 'Doug Ewell'; ltru@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

There is no such thing as a "private extension". The whole point of the extension mechanism is public use.

We provide private use subtags for private use.

Addison

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Debbie Garside
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:09 AM
> To: 'Doug Ewell'; ltru@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
> 
> Also, if my memory serves me correct, the responsibility for maintaining
> extension data was designed for private extensions not this type of extension
> where there is a more public use.
> 
> Debbie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Debbie Garside
> Sent: 08 July 2011 16:14
> To: 'Doug Ewell'; ltru@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
> 
> Thanks for the explanations Doug
> 
> Yes, it all seems terribly fractured which is another reason for keeping it within
> IETF.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Debbie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Doug
> Ewell
> Sent: 08 July 2011 15:55
> To: ltru@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
> 
> Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:
> 
> > But I still don't see why it needs to be taken out of IETF.  Where is
> > the added value?  Where are discussions held?  Why create another list
> > when we already have IETF-languages?
> > ...
> > I really need to be shown the added value of outsourcing this work. I
> > am open to being persuaded.
> 
> Actually, the responsibility for maintaining extension data has always been
> delegated, ever since RFC 4646 introduced the extension mechanism.
> 
> A draft that proposes a new extension, such as the one under discussion,
> defines the maintaining or registering authority for that extension.  In theory
> this could be the ietf-languages list itself, but the membership of that list, taken
> as a whole, has historically been less than eager to embrace the extension
> concept.  Usually, proposing an extension implies that one is assuming
> responsibility for its maintenance, including setting up a mailing list for
> discussion.
> 
> The CLDR folks were ultimately responsible for proposing both RFC 6067 (the -
> u- extension) and the present draft, and it is natural that they assume
> responsibility for maintaining it.  I'm not worried about that.
> I do have concerns that we neglected, in 4646 and 5646, to require that the
> maintaining authority be open or have a transparent process, or that the
> "registry" of extension data (paragraph 3) not be spread out across multiple
> documents in different formats, including algorithms and prose descriptions,
> omissions which are exploited (both IMHO) by 6067 and by the present draft.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru