Subject: [Ltru] Response to Mr. Constable

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:52:45 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Mr. Constable,
I read your mail with care. I am sure you are full of good intents. I was
very upset because I read "droll". Then I looked exactly what is a
"troll". I understand it can be someone destructive and I think you are
one without understanding it, by over simplification (what leads to a
great complexity to further add what you remove). It can also be someone
forcing others to answer. And then I certainly am the one. So we are both
trolls.

I must explain you that if M. JFC Morfin is active on your list it is at
our request. We work by topic. He is specialised in what we name "CRC"
(granular IANA distributed extensions) which are of utmost importance for
the architecture of the Multilingual Internet. He is a Member of the BoD
of the MINC, a co-founder of Eurolinc with Louis Pouzin, the Executive
Secretary of the NICSO, etc.. He also deals with other officials and
groups at EU and ITU and government who share in its long experience in
networking. He was kind enough to spare us all the debate over your
langtag: it covers things you probably have a real need for, but which do
not interest us (we are interested in network and peoples practical tools
experimrntation - lists of no defined items have no real interest as long
as they are not meant for something real). He wanted to try to find an
agreement but you seems too interested in your own need.. What is not bad,
but this does not help others who also use RFC 3066 and are happy with it.
We considered the "x-" proposition which was made on your list, and all
the parts of the Draft which say that x-tags are not standardised (this is
repeated). The only problem we have is the hexatridecimal 8alphanum. It
can be changed without problem since everything in x-tags is by private
convention?

M. JFC Morfin having asked us to follow the "WG-ltru" list for him, I
thought I could introduce our need. M. JFC Morfin had warned me that the
response would be the one I received from the group, from Addison and from
you, for the exact reasons you gave. I thought it was not possible, and I
tried in good faith. I am not used to the IETF rude lists. The response
seemed so out of context, that I insisted. Now, I know that there is no
chance of innovation with the IETF and I will unsubscribe us.

M. JFC Morfin made every effort to preserve the possibility of a future
co-operation. He has shown us that at the end of the day the users'
solutions will prevail. Now we see that Dr. Larry Robert himself his
treated the same. So we are very proud!

I am satisfied with the proposition reported by M. JFC Morfin: this is
real. We have started discussing its experimentation with some other
groups. I suppose that AFRAC will publish a note on this before the
September meeting.

I wish you the best success for ISO 639-3. We will use it extensively with
the other ISO 639-X. Thank you for your effort. As dot-root we want to
focus on experimenting of real interest to the network users. Application
we do not understand for linguist experts may be of real interest, but
with our limited number of engineers, students and machines, they are too
specialised for us.
F. Charles.

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

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:21:08 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of [email-masked]

> He was kind enough to spare us all the debate over your
> not interest us... He wanted to try to find an

Your statement makes no sense: you say that we are not helping those who
use RFC 3066 and are happy with it, implying that we are doing them a
disservice. If they are happy with it, then they want to continue doing
what they are doing without problems, and we are working to ensure just
that: *every* existing usage valid under RFC 3066 will be valid under
3066bis.

> can be changed without problem since everything in x-tags is by
private

Everything in tags beginning with x- is by private convention, with the
sole limitation that the tag must take the form 

("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))

(following the notation described in RFC2234).

> chance of innovation with the IETF and I will unsubscribe us.

There is plenty of innovation happening. But the specific change you
requested, allowing use of "." in private-use tags, is not an innovation
that can be considered since it would explicitly break the provision
mentioned above: ensuring that existing users happy with RFC 3066 can
continue to work without problems.

Peter Constable