Subject: [Ltru] Re: Status in LTRU

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:33:17 -0700

Hi -

This spilled over from the IETF list, and really belongs in the ltru list.

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Status in LTRU
>
> On 21:48 29/06/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
> >The ltru WG considered the proposal to employ ISO 11179.
> >No one else supported the proposal to employ ISO 11179.
>
> You kidding? Debbie stated that ISO 639-6 does. :-)

Wrong. She said: "FYI  the proposed 639-6 draft is currently
being harmonized with ISO 11179; parts 1 (framework) and
6 (registration)".

> >Several opposed the proposal to employ ISO 11179.
>
> I will run a gallup to know how many have seen an ISO 11179 print out :-)
>
> >The proposal to employ ISO 11179 was rejected.
> >Get over it.
>
> :-) :-) :-)  Oh! yes we get over it! full time.
>
> >If you have concerns with the ltru work, please take them to the
> >[email-masked] mailing list.  [email-masked] really isn't the place for
> >discussing the details of the language tag registry.
>
> Full agreement. Tell that to the WG-ltru Member Harald Alvestrand. Started
> insulting Europe, then everyone ?

You forget that you started the discussion of ltru on the IETF list.

> This fun apart, my response to Martin's proposal is serious. I will not

I fail to see the fun in dealing with your whining.

> have much support in my team and contacts, but I think it is a good way to
> get us all out of this mud, or this fun will continue for a few years.

I suppose you're proud of how much these delays cost the industry?
Or does delay somehow suit you?

> If you confirm this, copy to ADs, I am ready to work on a review of the

What is "this"?  It sounds like you're trying to work some kind of backroom
deal to delay delivery of our documents to the IESG.  This would not
be appropriate.

> Draft before July 18th (I go in vacations - I am with the ICANN meeting in
> Luxembourg from 9 to 13). It will result in a formal list of questions

We're rather late in the process for questions.  If you see a problem,
please identify it and propose a solution.  Otherwise I doubt your list
would be taken seriously.

> which will be copied to the AD/IESG with our agreement and published on

Who does "our" refer to?  Participation in the IETF is by individuals, and
you're not on the liaison list at http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html

> http://rfc3066.org. I expect they should result in a FAQ in appendix,
> providing short explanations from the mailing list. You will answer the
> questions you want (as the list will be public I do not mind).

What goes into the document is subject to WG consensus.  If your comments
come during IETF last call, the IESG will probably also get involved.

> This is provided to help. The general comment I have around me is "we do
> not understand anything in what they intend to say". I will be candid,
> these questions are risen after ISO 639 committee members have briefed us
> on the importance they attribute as authors to ISO 11179. The resulting
> questions match in part the questions we had before. But as a network
> person I am not satisfied with ISO 11179. The work I carry over CRCs and
> their implications lead me to think, as stated, that this is an LDAP/X.500
> like situation.

I find this paragraph incomprehensible.

> Now, the real issue for your WG is that we will have the Last Call in
> September/October, i.e. after Varsaw. In Varsaw there will be the
> acceptance of ISO 639-3 what will help, and hopefully clarification on ISO
> 639-4 and directions on ISO 639-6. I cannot presume, but this should lead
> to ISO langtags this or next year which will be different from yours....
> And probably with element definitions different from yours and most
> probably other niceties about what is missing in the Draft.

Our charter says we are already behind schedule for WG last call.
As I've said before, we hope to start WG last call this week.

> I am not much interested in drafts, I am interested in running and accepted
> code. I suspect that we will produce a running server this falls supporting
> the iso langtags. I documented how: in using x-tags - undefined size and
> supporting URLs. From this we will see. But may be will you have to produce
> the 3066 ter soon enough.
>
> jfc

Randy, ltru co-chair

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:32:25 +0200

As some may have noted it, this was a private mail commenting another list 
thread. Two netiquette violations. Two good reasons to ban me from the list 
before the WGLC? Or a way to torpedoe my proposition ....

At 01:33 30/06/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>I suppose you're proud of how much these delays cost the industry? Or does 
>delay somehow suit you?

... I consider as fair and of common interest in regards to these two 
questions (I have documented many many times with great details).

Nice troll, Randy, but I will not kill the chances of this WG. It is up to 
Martin, Mark and Peter to do it, if they so wishes.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:32:28 -0700

Hi Jefsey -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:32 PM
> Subject: it was a private mail ...
>
...

I apologize for offending your refined sense of netiquette.

By now no one should be surprised to learn that
I prefer to err on the side of openness.  Proposals
to change the WG schedule or do anything out of the
ordinary in the last call process clearly must be discussed
in the open.  The need to keep the process fair and open
is more important to me than the finer points of netiquette.

Randy

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:33:47 +0200

>I apologize for offending your refined sense of netiquette.

Thank you. But netiquette is netiquette. We both know what you tried.

>I prefer to err on the side of openness.

err is a correct word.

>Proposals

This exchange had nothing to do with the WG, it resulted from your 
discussion on an external list of a quote on from another list refering 
inappropriately to this WG.

There is no proposed change of the WG schedule, to the contrary. I take 
this remark as a way to help derail the possibility of a consensual quick 
close-up of the RFC 3066 bis draft as proposed by your co-chair.

I do not understand it.
jfc