Subject: [Ltru] (need approval) Working Group submission: LTRU registry draft-01

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:49:22 -0700

Randy and Martin,

Please approve my submitting the current editor's copy (attached) as draft-01 by responding to this email. I will submit the new draft over a copy of the response.

Then we can proceed to wipe up any remaining issues, hopefully for a timely last call.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
http://www.quest.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

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

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:57:59 +0900

Hello Addison,

At 03:49 05/04/26, Addison Phillips wrote:
 >Randy and Martin,
 >
 >Please approve my submitting the current editor's copy (attached) as
 >draft-01 by responding to this email.

Please go ahead and submit the draft. There have been a lot of edits
since -00, and it's always better to have a published draft at the
official site to look at than a copy somewhere on the net.

 >I will submit the new draft over a copy of the response.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Did you want to say
that you will submit it as soon as you get a response?

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:34:04 +0200

Dear co-Chairs,
I am interested to know if you plan to start a debate on the points of the 
Charter Randy described as thorny and to discuss the points in my Review of 
the Draft as announced also by Randy. I must wait for these debates to get 
the positions of this WG on all these points before:

- either writing my own announced Draft to be as near as possible of a 
consensus, since I put myself in priority in the perspective of the WG 
Charter rather than in the continuity of a text which failed twice. This 
text could be an appropriate fix to the explained XML difficulty, but not a 
BCP 047 on Internet language tags framework.

- or accept the changes resulting from this debate as consensual. I note 
that the points of disagreement are those who lead to the lack of consensus 
during the last Last Call. They are mainly the point above and the 
organisation of the ietf-languages list which is one of the key Charter 
point which has never been discussed yet. The organisation and the load for 
the IANA also never got any response. But all this is in my  review.

As explained to Frank we started to write a Draft earlier and waited for 
this debate. Now I am quite busy.
- If you plan this debate I will still wait for it, I will make my delayed 
home work as I can, and I will call for an extra 15 days after I submitted 
my own Draft to have it reviewed.
- If you do not plan to have these debates, I will be less dependent on the 
calendar of this WG to introduce a totally independent Draft. It will then 
get discussed on the general list during the last call, I presume?

Please advise.
jfc

At 20:49 25/04/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>draft-01 by responding to this email. I will submit the new draft over a 
>copy of the response.
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:25:24 -0700

Hi -

(I've changed the subject line, since Jefsey's posting had nothing
to do with the thread in which he had posted.)

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "ltru Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] (need approval) Working Group submission: LTRU registry draft-01
>

> Charter Randy described as thorny

I do wish you would not twist my words.  I don't know whether the problem is
in your reading, your understanding, or your writing.  I suggest you engage the
services of someone fluent in technical French and English.  I know that many
such people exist.

To be perfectly clear:
   - the charter is not up for debate until we complete our work
   - the charter imposes specific requirements on what we deliver
   - we need to ensure that what we produces addresses all the
     mandatory requirements imposed by our charter

> and to discuss the points in my Review of
> the Draft as announced also by Randy.

I do need to assign issue tracker numbers to the technical points
from that message.  I'm sorry it has taken so long, but that in no way
has prevented discussion of your messages, as any reader of
this list will be aware.

> I must wait for these debates to get

You can write your i-d whever you like.   No one is holding you back.

> point which has never been discussed yet.

My recollection of the discussion on this list is that your problems with the
ietf-languages list found no support in this WG.  The one to which you have
given the most emphasis, issue [psg.com #888], appears to be based
on a fundamental misunderstanding of how IETF mailing lists work, as
others have repeatedly explained here and elsewhere.

> The organisation and the load for
> the IANA also never got any response.

Untrue.  There has been discussion of both those points.  In the
case of the former, I don't think we've reached a conclusion, other than
to say that we need to provide explicit instructions to IANA to tell them
how we want things to work if we want anything fancy.  In the case of the
latter point, I believe the consensus was to provide a strong
warning to developers to not do stupid things, as pointless as that may be,
since the same theoretical problems could occur for many other registries,
e.g., http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers

> But all this is in my  review.
>

That is your choice.

> get discussed on the general list during the last call, I presume?
...

This mailing list is for the discussion of WG documents.  If you produce an
independent submission, you are welcome to bring it to the WG's
attention, and the WG may, if it choses, incorporate relevant ideas
and text into its work.  However, this WG's schedule will not be dictated
by yours, and the last call period is for the discussion of the document
under last call.

As for the conduct of the last call, I refer you to RFC 2418 section 8
(for WG last call) and RFC 2026 section 6.1.2 (for IETF last call).

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:29:46 +0200

At 20:25 26/04/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>To be perfectly clear: the charter is not up for debate until we complete 
>our work.

I just submit that commonly understanding the Charter might help before 
responding to it. Don't you agree?
jfc