Subject: AW: [Geopriv] Next steps for the 'Location Types Registry' draft

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:34:03 +0200

hi henning, 

thanks for your quick feedback. i fully agree with everything you wrote.

nice summary. 

ciao
hannes

> It is sometimes difficult to reach consensus on a mailing list, as 
> peetering out of a discussion can either indicate that the 
> proponent of 
> a particular solution or approach has been convinced by the 
> arguments of 
> other solutions or that he or she has simply given up.
> 
> There seem to be two somewhat separate issues:
> 
> (1) Should the current initial registry use english words or 
> some other 
> token, such as a number.
> 
> (2) Should the registry restrict future registrations to being 
> (American) English words.
> 
> I thought there was a recognition that
> 
> - the token registered are not usually made directly visible to end 
> users (*);
> 
> - thus, they are protocol tokens that are, by consensus of the IETF 
> reflected in relevant RFCs, not subject to I18N, no different 
> from, say, 
> the RPID XML element names or HTTP protocol header names.
> 
> - numeric identifiers could be used, but would offer no significant 
> advantages, but rather decrease readability and complicate debugging. 
> After all, we don't use numeric header names or random letter 
> strings in 
> SMTP or HTTP, either. We have always assumed that 
> implementors of IETF 
> standards understand English - otherwise, they'd have difficulty 
> programming in any known programming language except maybe APL or 
> reading the RFC to begin with.
> 
> This seems to argue for leaving (1) as is.
> 
> For issue (2): I don't think registries of tokens and namespaces have 
> typically specified the language to be used for future registrations. 
> This would be handled as part of the normal review process 
> specified for 
> the registry. It seems likely that such a review would reject names 
> designating the same location just in a different language and may 
> consider whether the use of non-English names is likely to further 
> interoperability. Given the lack of precedent and the low 
> likelihood of 
> having to deal with this issue in practice, it seems easiest just to 
> punt here and not call out that facet of the registration review. 
> Otherwise, we might have to get into whether the 
> FCC-certified "dirty" 
> words are allowable and who knows what other issues.
> 
> (*) Even English language user interfaces may, for example, replace 
> hyphens by space or translate single-word names into more descriptive 
> phrases.
> 
> Is this is a reasonable summary?
> 
> Henning
> 
> 
> Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
> > hi all, 
> > 
> > as part of the wglc for the location types registry draft 
> we received
> > feedback regarding the usage of english for the different location
> > types. i could not see a consensus with respect to this issue and i
> > would like to see suggestions on how to move forward.  
> > 
> > ciao
> > hannes
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv