headers
Randy Presuhn | 2 Jun 07:42
Picon

Fw: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 66th IETF Meeting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Hi -

A reminder from the secretariat.

Randy

> From: <ietf-secretariat <at> ietf.org>
> To: <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:00 PM
> Subject: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 66th IETF Meeting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada 
>
> 
> There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 66th 
> IETF Meeting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada:
> 
> June 19th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00) 
> Internet-Draft Submissions 
> 
> All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday, 
> June 19th at 9:00 AM ET. As always, all initial submissions with a 
> filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be approved by the 
> appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced.  The 
> Secretariat would appreciate receiving WG Chair approval by Monday, 
> June 12th at 9:00 AM ET.
> 
> June 26th: Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., version -01 and higher) 
> Internet-Draft Submissions 
> 
> All revised Internet-Drafts (version -01 and higher) must be submitted 
> by Monday, June 26th at 9:00 AM ET.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Addison Phillips | 2 Jun 13:00
Picon
Favicon

draft-13 to draft-14 diff available...

... at http://tinyurl.com/ofnwg

Links to this are also on my homepage http://www.inter-locale.com

This is a very tiny diff.

Also, if you're interested in the draft's progress through the IETF plumbing, you can watch the status on
draft-tracker here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13140&rfc_flag=0

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Martin Duerst | 3 Jun 02:17
Picon
Gravatar

Charter Discussion

Dear LTRU WG Members,

Quite some time ago, we agreed that after finishing our deliverables,
we will have a discussion about the charter. Randy and I would like
to start this discussion now, because we basically have finished our
deliverables (we may need to come back to the matching draft once
in a while based on comments in IETF Last Call and comments from the
IESG).

Discussions about (re)chartering are by nature rather open-ended,
but to focus discussion a bit, here are some questions:

1) What do you think is most needed after our current drafts are
   approved (and published as RFCs). What are the next steps?
   In what order/priority?

2) Is further specification work needed? Are there preconditions?
   What are predicted/desirable timelines?

3) Where (which organizations) should further spec work be done?
   What work should be done in the IETF? 

4) In case further work in the IETF is needed, should the current
   WG be closed and a new WG be started at a later time, or should
   the current WG be rechartered? (Hint: The IETF has a strong
   preference for short-duration WGs with very clearly defined
   deliverables.)

5) Anything else?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 27 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 3 Jun 04:29
Picon

www.ietf.org servers -2006/06/03 - 12:00am EST

Hi -

In case you're not on the ietf <at> ietf.org or ietf-announce <at> ietf.org 
distribution lists....

Randy

> From: <ietf-secretariat <at> ietf.org>
> To: <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>; <ietf <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:29 PM
> Subject: Pre-IPV6 maintenance of one of the www.ietf.org servers -2006/06/03 - 12:00am EST
>
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Tomorrow Saturday June 3 at 12:00am EST, we will be taking down one of
> the round robin www servers for the IETF (209.173.53.180) for
> maintenance in preparation for supporting IPV6.  The outage should be
> less than 1 hour.  This system also serves as the primary site for...
> 
>      noc.ietf.org
>      www.iab.org
>      www.iesg.org
> 
> so those sites will also be down.
> 
> Mail and the mailing lists (and their archives) should no be affected.
> 
> If after 01:00AM EST you experience any difficulties, or notice
> anything amiss with the sites, please send email to ietf-action at
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Addison Phillips | 3 Jun 08:25
Picon
Favicon

RE: Charter Discussion

Hi Martin,

Based on our past experience, we may have quite an adventure ahead on the
matching draft: nothing surprises me any more.

> 1) What do you think is most needed after our current drafts are
>    approved (and published as RFCs). What are the next steps?
>    In what order/priority?

This group's next major task will be a minor revision of 3066bis when ISO
639-3 is approved later this year. After that we should go away.

> 2) Is further specification work needed? Are there preconditions?
>    What are predicted/desirable timelines?

See above.

> 3) Where (which organizations) should further spec work be done?
>    What work should be done in the IETF? 

W3C I18N Core WG is already working on "LTLI" (Language Tags and Locale
Identifiers). According to that group's charter, that spec will (among other
things) interpret RFC 3066bis and draft-matching for use with W3C
technologies. 

> 4) In case further work in the IETF is needed, should the current
>    WG be closed and a new WG be started at a later time, or should
>    the current WG be rechartered?

We should keep the current WG until the update is completed.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
John Cowan | 3 Jun 09:33

Re: Charter Discussion

Addison Phillips scripsit:

> This group's next major task will be a minor revision of 3066bis when ISO
> 639-3 is approved later this year. After that we should go away.

Agreed.  We will need to get the extlang machinery turned on and
decide what to do about sign languages.  We will also need to reload
the registry from another I-D so that IANA does not need to process six
thousand individual additions.  That will constitute 3066ter.

> > 4) In case further work in the IETF is needed, should the current
> >    WG be closed and a new WG be started at a later time, or should
> >    the current WG be rechartered?
> 
> We should keep the current WG until the update is completed.

Agreed again.  The WG should go into dormancy until 639-3 is at the
appropriate ISO stage, probably after approval as an International
Standard but before actual publication -- analogous to IETF approval of
an RFC as distinct from its publication.

--

-- 
While staying with the Asonu, I met a man from      John Cowan
the Candensian plane, which is very much like       cowan <at> ccil.org
ours, only more of it consists of Toronto.          http://:www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Ursula K. Le Guin, Changing Planes
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Addison Phillips | 3 Jun 14:04
Picon
Favicon

RE: Charter Discussion

> 
> Agreed.  We will need to get the extlang machinery turned on and

Yep.

> decide what to do about sign languages.  

Nothing much. Perhaps (informatively) deprecate the existing tags in favor
of their 639 equivalents.

> We will also need to reload
> the registry from another I-D so that IANA does not need to 
> process six
> thousand individual additions.  

Probably one with just the additions, rather than a wholesale replacement.
This avoids complicated interregnum periods and such. 

> That will constitute 3066ter.

Yes. Too bad we can't just do it as an erratum! Turning on extlang will take
one, possibly two sentences. (Although I suspect we'll have to review the
section on stability rules.)

> 
> > 
> > We should keep the current WG until the update is completed.
> 
> Agreed again.  The WG should go into dormancy until 639-3 is at the
> appropriate ISO stage, probably after approval as an International
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John Cowan | 3 Jun 16:20

Re: Charter Discussion

Addison Phillips scripsit:

> Nothing much. Perhaps (informatively) deprecate the existing tags in
> favor of their 639 equivalents.

The issue is whether we ought to treat "sgn" as a macrolanguage.  It
would be nice if 639-3 already did, but if it doesn't, we'll have
to decide whether to do so (I'm in favor of it).

> Probably one with just the additions, rather than a wholesale
> replacement.  This avoids complicated interregnum periods and such.

Fair enough.  There are a few modifications to do, changing some
grandfathered tags to redundant and deprecating some.

> > That will constitute 3066ter.

> Yes. Too bad we can't just do it as an erratum!

In principle we could issue an updating RFC, but I'd rather issue
a superseding one.

> I'm told that the dormant period will not be long, given that our
> draft-matching IETF last call hasn't even started yet and 639-3 is
> advancing steadily. So that would be in keeping with the IETF's goals
> of short-lived WGs with fixed deliverables.

Good.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 3 Jun 23:17
Picon

Re: Charter Discussion

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

>> 1) What do you think is most needed after our current drafts are
>>    approved (and published as RFCs). What are the next steps?
>>    In what order/priority?
>
> This group's next major task will be a minor revision of 3066bis when 
> ISO 639-3 is approved later this year. After that we should go away.

We also need to decide what to do about ISO 639-6.  We've already 
reserved 4-letter primary language subtags for "possible future 
standardization" (Section 2.2.1), which really means 639-6.

ISO 639-6 is scheduled for publication in 2007, and although publicly 
available information is still sparse and there are still questions 
about how it should interoperate with the rest of RFC 3066bis/ter, I 
think it would be a mistake for this group to "go away" before having a 
chance to discuss it.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 4 Jun 06:15
Picon

Re: Charter Discussion

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell <at> adelphia.net>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Cc: "Debbie Garside" <md <at> ictmarketing.co.uk>
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 2:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion
>
> Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:
> 
> >> 1) What do you think is most needed after our current drafts are
> >>    approved (and published as RFCs). What are the next steps?
> >>    In what order/priority?
> >
> > This group's next major task will be a minor revision of 3066bis when 
> > ISO 639-3 is approved later this year. After that we should go away.
> 
> We also need to decide what to do about ISO 639-6.  We've already 
> reserved 4-letter primary language subtags for "possible future 
> standardization" (Section 2.2.1), which really means 639-6.
> 
> ISO 639-6 is scheduled for publication in 2007, and although publicly 
> available information is still sparse and there are still questions 
> about how it should interoperate with the rest of RFC 3066bis/ter, I 
> think it would be a mistake for this group to "go away" before having a 
> chance to discuss it.
...

I think it's important to draw a distinction between keeping a working
group active and keeping its mailing list going.  There is no point in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane