Re: RFC 3282: should we revise it?

Hi -

As a technical contributor (returning from two blissful weeks without email) ...

> From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison <at> amazon.com>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:34 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
>
> The one bit of language tagging infrastructure that we have not revised
> since this whole body of work has started is RFC 3282, which defines
> Content-Language and Accept-Language.

That was outside the scope for which ltru was originally chartered.

> This morning I had cause to want to reference it, but a desire not to
> (since it depends on 3066 rather than the current-and-future BCP 47).
> I'm pretty sure that the whole machinery of a WG is not needed to
> revise this document--I'm thinking it would make a suitable individual
> submission.

I agree.

> But I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone had thoughts about
> whether it were necessary, whether this list would make a suitable
> place to solicit comments,

(As co-chair) This seems reasonable for now.  If it turns out to require
significant discussion, or if a better WG "home" appears, we
can redirect the discussion at that time.

Re: RFC 3282: should we revise it?

> 
> Hi -
> 
> As a technical contributor (returning from two blissful weeks
> without email) ...

Welcome back!

> >
> > The one bit of language tagging infrastructure that we have not
> revised
> > since this whole body of work has started is RFC 3282, which
> defines
> > Content-Language and Accept-Language.
> 
> That was outside the scope for which ltru was originally chartered.

I agree, hence:

> 
> > This morning I had cause to want to reference it, but a desire
> not to
> > (since it depends on 3066 rather than the current-and-future BCP
> 47).
> > I'm pretty sure that the whole machinery of a WG is not needed to
> > revise this document--I'm thinking it would make a suitable
> > individual submission.
> 
> I agree.
> 

Re: RFC 3282: should we revise it?

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:

> Ever the optimist, I would hope that such a revision wouldn't require 
> the level of effort needed for the BCP 47 work.

You never know.  In September 2005 on ietf-languages, Peter Constable 
mentioned the upcoming 4646bis effort and said:

"For my part, I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much* 
shorter time that 3066bis has taken."

As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646.

But a quick look at RFC 3282--which is possible, since it's only 8 pages 
long including boilerplate and page breaks--suggests that the following 
changes might be all that is necessary:

* Update reference to ABNF and remove EBNF in sections 2 and 3.

* Update examples in Section 2.1 using i-languages to use ISO 639-based,
  grandfathered, hypothetical 5-to-8-character registered, or private-
  use tags instead.

* Consider a simple update to Section 4, possibly just a pointer to the
  security section of 4646bis.

* As suggested by CE Whitehead, update reference to Language "Tag"
  Reviewer (which was correct at the time 3282 was written) to refer to
  the Language "Subtag" Reviewer instead.  (On the other hand, it's just
  an acknowledgement.)

Re: RFC 3282: should we revise it?

> 
> "For my part, I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much*
> shorter time that 3066bis has taken."
> 
> As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646. You forget that there were a dozen or so
draft-davis-phillips documents before the WG even started.

No it didn't. Mark and I started 4646 on the very first day of the Iraq war.

> This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an individual
> to
> prepare and submit an update without experiencing the surreal
> delays of
> the LTRU process, and without being subjected to undue slings and
> arrows.
> 

Well, as noted, "ever the optimist".....

Addison

Re: RFC 3282: should we revise it?

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote (slightly 
rearranged):

>> As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646.
>
> No it didn't. Mark and I started 4646 on the very first day of the 
> Iraq war. You forget that there were a dozen or so 
> draft-davis-phillips documents before the WG even started.

I didn't forget.  My copy of draft-phillips-langtags-00 is dated 
2003-12-17.  The final draft which became RFC 4646, 
draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14, was approved by IESG on 2005-11-15, or 699 
days later.  We did wait another 10 months for RFC numbers, but that 
time was mostly spent working on the relatively uncontroversial 
draft-4647 and planning for LTRU 2.0.

Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-00, the first LTRU 2.0 draft, was dated 
2006-09-11 -- perhaps coincidentally, the same date RFC 4646 was 
published.  Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23 was approved by IESG on 
2009-06-18 (the formal announcement came a week later).  That's a span 
of 1,011 days, or 315 days longer for LTRU 2.0 than for LTRU 1.0.  And 
of course, we're still waiting for RFC numbers.

I'd be willing to bet we spent more days actually *working* on the first 
set of drafts than on the second, but we had a LOT of downtime over the 
past 3 years.  Some issues were left unresolved and undiscussed for 
weeks at a time.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

ISO FDIS 639-6

Hi

Just to let you know that the FDIS for 639-6 will be published on Thursday,
August 6, 2009 -- According to ISO Central Secretariat.  There is a 2 month
comments/voting window where editorial comments may be received.

Regards

Debbie Garside
Editor

The World Language Documentation Centre
Corner House
Barn Street
Haverfordwest
Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW
Wales UK

Tel: 0044 1437 766441
Fax: 0044 1437 766173

Web: http://www.thewldc.org

Any information on SF?

Re: Any information on SF?

Hi -

As technical contributor...

My suggestion would be to not worry about it.

As co-chair...

It's *way* too late and too unlikely to be the source of
any kind of problem to open it up as an issue here.  If
someone thinks it would be *useful* to add it to the registry,
ietf-languages <at> iana.org would be the place to do it.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Davis ⌛" <mark <at> macchiato.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF?

(That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of the
two.)

We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was
cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The code

SF stands out.

*Transitionally reserved*
BU    Burma
CS    SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
NT    Neutral Zone
*SF    Finland     Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI??
*TP    East Timor
YU    Yugoslavia
ZR    Zaire

I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn before
RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it
exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3:
http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.htm).
Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely has
some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for two items
it has "officiellement attribué". So for all we know, SF is just a mistake
in that table!

Does anyone know more about the code SF?

For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of which are
obsolete codes.

*Exceptionally Reserved*
AC    Ascension Island     ok
CP    Clipperton Island     ok
DG    Diego Garcia     ok
EA    Ceuta, Melilla     ok
EU    European Union     ok
*FX    France, Metropolitan     Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR
*IC    Canary Islands     ok
*SU    USSR     Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ KG LV
LT MD TJ TM UA UZ
*TA    Tristan da Cunha     ok
*UK    UNITED KINGDOM     Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB*

Mark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

Re: Any information on SF?

Re: Any information on SF?