IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Tue, 10 October 2006 18:52 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXMhx-0001QK-BO; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:52:05 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXMhv-0001MB-HZ for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:52:03 -0400
Received: from mailc.microsoft.com ([131.107.115.214] helo=smtp.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXMhu-0006r5-7U for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:52:03 -0400
Received: from mailout5.microsoft.com (157.54.69.148) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.0.647.8; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:52:01 -0700
Received: from RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.61.148]) by mailout5.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2786); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:51:43 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:51:04 -0700
Message-ID: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0B1B1A82@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <452BCBE9.56D0@xyzzy.claranet.de>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?
thread-index: AcbsimxDT/TNa/BwTFqWstHaV5Z8IwAEk0bA
References: <452B995B.92F@xyzzy.claranet.de><F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0B1B1999@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <452BCBE9.56D0@xyzzy.claranet.de>
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@lists.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2006 18:51:43.0578 (UTC) FILETIME=[21167BA0:01C6EC9D]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Whatever on earth does the source of orq in the draft table for 639-3
have to do with how the type attribute of entries in 639-3 are useful?
What point are you getting at? (I really haven't a clue.)


Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:36 AM
To: ltru@lists.ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?

Peter Constable wrote:

> One can read all my thoughts on this that have been published
> elsewhere (see http://www.sil.org/silewp/2000/001/).

That doesn't explain "orq".  And the ethnologue site claims that
"orq" is no SIL code.  So how did it get added to a 639-3 draft ?

There must be some procedure, and if that procedure is broken it
needs to be fixed before nonsense is added to a registry designed
for stability.  There's no way to get rid of "orq" later, at best
it could be deprecated.

Of course one "orq" is harmless and not worse than say "tlh", but
if that's only the tip of an iceberg spammers and criminals will
abuse it as fast as 1-2-3 to create their virtual "Cesidian root"
or "Dominion of Melchizedek" realities.

We can't have IANA servers confiscated in criminal investigations
about DOM.  

Frank



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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email