Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #882] registry should copy non-Englishfieldsfrom ISO documents

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:25:55 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

> I am sorry, I can only repeat this a definitive blocking opposition
for me.

Just to keep perspective, something being a definite blocking issue for
you doesn't mean it is necessarily a blocking issue for this process.

> For the reasons I gave several times. However once the principle of
dual
> language (at least) naming necessity is established, practical
> arrangements
> can be quite flexible.
> 
> 1. if an Englist or French (or other languages to be added) name for a
> language is missing, it will be accepted as non fully documented until
a
> name is provided (a IANA procedure and Reviewer will have to be
> designated).
> 2. the same IANA registration could only be entered in English or
French.
> It will be up to the French/English Reviewer to make sure the name in
the
> missing language(s) is provided.

This points to a reason why I think maintaining names in two languages
might *not* be such a great idea: it leads to a whole lot more
maintenance, with no significant benefit for the registry qua registry
in return.

If we are going to have names in more than one language, then

- it should be at most English, French, and the auto-nym(s) used within
the language community

- there should be *no* requirement or expectation that the names will be
reviewed or revised after addition to the registry except in case the
source ISO standard introduces a revision to a name (if the maintainers
of the registry wish to do more, they may do so at their discretion, but
it should not be required or expected of them)

Peter Constable

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