From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com Tue Aug 4 22:21:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F3E3A69FB for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:21:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SS4gtdgjEauB for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D243A6F3E for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:21:19 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=tfY6EITOi4Eso0mUYf2vOHCw5Xts5W8QLz5Ht6FIxAxIXP5+nrGB2HRur9c8IJNs; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [99.35.226.75] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MYYwE-0006Vw-Do for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:21:22 -0400 Message-ID: <032801ca158c$d088a020$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:23:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88884f945684cbf6968fa0e37b99391e9f82fc083ed3bc68f51350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.35.226.75 Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:21:21 -0000 Hi - As a technical contributor (returning from two blissful weeks without email) ... > From: "Phillips, Addison" > To: "LTRU Working Group" > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:34 AM > Subject: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? > > The one bit of language tagging infrastructure that we have not revised > since this whole body of work has started is RFC 3282, which defines > Content-Language and Accept-Language. That was outside the scope for which ltru was originally chartered. > This morning I had cause to want to reference it, but a desire not to > (since it depends on 3066 rather than the current-and-future BCP 47). > I'm pretty sure that the whole machinery of a WG is not needed to > revise this document--I'm thinking it would make a suitable individual > submission. I agree. > But I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone had thoughts about > whether it were necessary, whether this list would make a suitable > place to solicit comments, (As co-chair) This seems reasonable for now. If it turns out to require significant discussion, or if a better WG "home" appears, we can redirect the discussion at that time. > and whether anyone thought a WG charter were necessary for > same (this last I studiously hope is not the case). (As technical contributor) I would not support adding this work to the ltru charter. Randy From addison@amazon.com Tue Aug 4 22:32:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5BC28C14C for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:32:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CcxQem8BZJ9e for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com [207.171.184.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CA53A7088 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:32:46 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,326,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="251770216" Received: from smtp-in-0201.sea3.amazon.com ([172.20.19.24]) by smtp-border-fw-out-9101.sea19.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Aug 2009 05:32:43 +0000 Received: from ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com [10.248.163.23]) by smtp-in-0201.sea3.amazon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n755Weqj008724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 05:32:40 GMT Received: from EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.30]) by ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.23]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:32:40 -0700 From: "Phillips, Addison" To: Randy Presuhn , LTRU Working Group Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:32:39 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? Thread-Index: AcoVjOrtBAJSbTvTSrqRnJoolCrYrwAACu2w Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AC38CFBF@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <032801ca158c$d088a020$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <032801ca158c$d088a020$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:32:47 -0000 PiANCj4gSGkgLQ0KPiANCj4gQXMgYSB0ZWNobmljYWwgY29udHJpYnV0b3IgKHJldHVybmluZyBm cm9tIHR3byBibGlzc2Z1bCB3ZWVrcw0KPiB3aXRob3V0IGVtYWlsKSAuLi4NCg0KV2VsY29tZSBi YWNrIQ0KDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBUaGUgb25lIGJpdCBvZiBsYW5ndWFnZSB0YWdnaW5nIGluZnJhc3Ry dWN0dXJlIHRoYXQgd2UgaGF2ZSBub3QNCj4gcmV2aXNlZA0KPiA+IHNpbmNlIHRoaXMgd2hvbGUg Ym9keSBvZiB3b3JrIGhhcyBzdGFydGVkIGlzIFJGQyAzMjgyLCB3aGljaA0KPiBkZWZpbmVzDQo+ ID4gQ29udGVudC1MYW5ndWFnZSBhbmQgQWNjZXB0LUxhbmd1YWdlLg0KPiANCj4gVGhhdCB3YXMg b3V0c2lkZSB0aGUgc2NvcGUgZm9yIHdoaWNoIGx0cnUgd2FzIG9yaWdpbmFsbHkgY2hhcnRlcmVk Lg0KDQpJIGFncmVlLCBoZW5jZToNCg0KPiANCj4gPiBUaGlzIG1vcm5pbmcgSSBoYWQgY2F1c2Ug dG8gd2FudCB0byByZWZlcmVuY2UgaXQsIGJ1dCBhIGRlc2lyZQ0KPiBub3QgdG8NCj4gPiAoc2lu Y2UgaXQgZGVwZW5kcyBvbiAzMDY2IHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50LWFuZC1mdXR1cmUg QkNQDQo+IDQ3KS4NCj4gPiBJJ20gcHJldHR5IHN1cmUgdGhhdCB0aGUgd2hvbGUgbWFjaGluZXJ5 IG9mIGEgV0cgaXMgbm90IG5lZWRlZCB0bw0KPiA+IHJldmlzZSB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50LS1JJ20g dGhpbmtpbmcgaXQgd291bGQgbWFrZSBhIHN1aXRhYmxlDQo+ID4gaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBzdWJtaXNz aW9uLg0KPiANCj4gSSBhZ3JlZS4NCj4gDQo+ID4gQnV0IEkgdGhvdWdodCBJJ2QgbWVudGlvbiBp dCBoZXJlIHRvIHNlZSBpZiBhbnlvbmUgaGFkIHRob3VnaHRzDQo+IGFib3V0DQo+ID4gd2hldGhl ciBpdCB3ZXJlIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSwgd2hldGhlciB0aGlzIGxpc3Qgd291bGQgbWFrZSBhDQo+IHN1 aXRhYmxlDQo+ID4gcGxhY2UgdG8gc29saWNpdCBjb21tZW50cywNCj4gDQo+IChBcyBjby1jaGFp cikgVGhpcyBzZWVtcyByZWFzb25hYmxlIGZvciBub3cuICBJZiBpdCB0dXJucyBvdXQgdG8NCj4g cmVxdWlyZQ0KPiBzaWduaWZpY2FudCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLCBvciBpZiBhIGJldHRlciBXRyAiaG9t ZSIgYXBwZWFycywgd2UNCj4gY2FuIHJlZGlyZWN0IHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGF0IHRoYXQgdGlt ZS4NCg0KU291bmRzIHJlYXNvbmFibGUuIEkgZG91YnQgYW5vdGhlciBXRyB3b3VsZCBhcHBlYXIg dG8gbWFrZSBhIGhvbWUgZm9yIHRoaXMuIEV2ZXIgdGhlIG9wdGltaXN0LCBJIHdvdWxkIGhvcGUg dGhhdCBzdWNoIGEgcmV2aXNpb24gd291bGRuJ3QgcmVxdWlyZSB0aGUgbGV2ZWwgb2YgZWZmb3J0 IG5lZWRlZCBmb3IgdGhlIEJDUCA0NyB3b3JrLg0KDQo+IA0KPiA+IGFuZCB3aGV0aGVyIGFueW9u ZSB0aG91Z2h0IGEgV0cgY2hhcnRlciB3ZXJlIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBmb3INCj4gPiBzYW1lICh0aGlz IGxhc3QgSSBzdHVkaW91c2x5IGhvcGUgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBjYXNlKS4NCj4gDQo+IChBcyB0ZWNo bmljYWwgY29udHJpYnV0b3IpIEkgd291bGQgbm90IHN1cHBvcnQgYWRkaW5nIHRoaXMgd29yaw0K PiB0byB0aGUgbHRydSBjaGFydGVyLg0KPiANCg0KQWJzb2x1dGVseSBub3QgKHNodWRkZXJzKS4g VGhhbmtzIGZvciB0aGUgbm90ZS4NCg0KQWRkaXNvbg0KDQpBZGRpc29uIFBoaWxsaXBzDQpHbG9i YWxpemF0aW9uIEFyY2hpdGVjdCAtLSBMYWIxMjYNCg0KSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbGl6YXRpb24gaXMg bm90IGEgZmVhdHVyZS4NCkl0IGlzIGFuIGFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZS4NCg0KDQoNCg== From doug@ewellic.org Wed Aug 5 18:37:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6A43A6ABB for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:37:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.126, BAYES_40=-0.185, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pv-4Bxd3zRra for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E9C233A67A3 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22257 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2009 01:37:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by p3plsmtpa01-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.82) with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2009 01:37:41 -0000 Message-ID: <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 19:37:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 01:37:39 -0000 "Phillips, Addison" wrote: > Ever the optimist, I would hope that such a revision wouldn't require > the level of effort needed for the BCP 47 work. You never know. In September 2005 on ietf-languages, Peter Constable mentioned the upcoming 4646bis effort and said: "For my part, I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much* shorter time that 3066bis has taken." As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646. But a quick look at RFC 3282--which is possible, since it's only 8 pages long including boilerplate and page breaks--suggests that the following changes might be all that is necessary: * Update reference to ABNF and remove EBNF in sections 2 and 3. * Update examples in Section 2.1 using i-languages to use ISO 639-based, grandfathered, hypothetical 5-to-8-character registered, or private- use tags instead. * Consider a simple update to Section 4, possibly just a pointer to the security section of 4646bis. * As suggested by CE Whitehead, update reference to Language "Tag" Reviewer (which was correct at the time 3282 was written) to refer to the Language "Subtag" Reviewer instead. (On the other hand, it's just an acknowledgement.) * Split references into normative and informative. * Update [TAGS] reference to 3066 to point to 4646bis instead. * Consider removing references to ISO standards, as the syntax and content of tags are fully defined by 4646bis and the Registry. This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an individual to prepare and submit an update without experiencing the surreal delays of the LTRU process, and without being subjected to undue slings and arrows. -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ From addison@amazon.com Wed Aug 5 21:22:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8764F3A6A8D for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vt6WRnF1Kezx for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com [72.21.196.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50273A695A for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,331,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="307360273" Received: from smtp-in-1104.vdc.amazon.com ([10.140.10.25]) by smtp-border-fw-out-2101.iad2.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Aug 2009 04:22:32 +0000 Received: from ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com [10.248.163.23]) by smtp-in-1104.vdc.amazon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n764MVni030106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:22:31 GMT Received: from EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.30]) by ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.23]) with mapi; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:31 -0700 From: "Phillips, Addison" To: Doug Ewell , LTRU Working Group Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:27 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? Thread-Index: AcoWNoWRsGetaRdDSp24EsPNxsf2ogAFqKAw Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AC46657F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> References: <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81> In-Reply-To: <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:22:30 -0000 PiANCj4gIkZvciBteSBwYXJ0LCBJIGhvcGUgdGhhdCAqdGhhdCogcmV2aXNpb24gaXMgY29tcGxl dGVkIGluIGEgKm11Y2gqDQo+IHNob3J0ZXIgdGltZSB0aGF0IDMwNjZiaXMgaGFzIHRha2VuLiIN Cj4gDQo+IEFzIHdlIG5vdyBrbm93LCA0NjQ2YmlzIHRvb2sgYSB5ZWFyIG9yIHNvIGxvbmdlciB0 aGFuIDQ2NDYuIFlvdSBmb3JnZXQgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSB3ZXJlIGEgZG96ZW4gb3Igc28gZHJhZnQt ZGF2aXMtcGhpbGxpcHMgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgV0cgZXZlbiBzdGFydGVkLg0KDQpO byBpdCBkaWRuJ3QuIE1hcmsgYW5kIEkgc3RhcnRlZCA0NjQ2IG9uIHRoZSB2ZXJ5IGZpcnN0IGRh eSBvZiB0aGUgSXJhcSB3YXIuDQoNCj4gVGhpcyBpbiB0dXJuIHN1Z2dlc3RzIHRoYXQgaXQgc2hv dWxkIGJlIGZlYXNpYmxlIGZvciBhbiBpbmRpdmlkdWFsDQo+IHRvDQo+IHByZXBhcmUgYW5kIHN1 Ym1pdCBhbiB1cGRhdGUgd2l0aG91dCBleHBlcmllbmNpbmcgdGhlIHN1cnJlYWwNCj4gZGVsYXlz IG9mDQo+IHRoZSBMVFJVIHByb2Nlc3MsIGFuZCB3aXRob3V0IGJlaW5nIHN1YmplY3RlZCB0byB1 bmR1ZSBzbGluZ3MgYW5kDQo+IGFycm93cy4NCj4gDQoNCldlbGwsIGFzIG5vdGVkLCAiZXZlciB0 aGUgb3B0aW1pc3QiLi4uLi4NCg0KQWRkaXNvbg0K From doug@ewellic.org Wed Aug 5 22:29:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640943A6B48 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdwuVgYLLm4F for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FB5D3A6A06 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24532 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2009 05:28:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by p3plsmtpa01-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.86) with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2009 05:28:41 -0000 Message-ID: From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AC46657F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:28:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:29:08 -0000 "Phillips, Addison" wrote (slightly rearranged): >> As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646. > > No it didn't. Mark and I started 4646 on the very first day of the > Iraq war. You forget that there were a dozen or so > draft-davis-phillips documents before the WG even started. I didn't forget. My copy of draft-phillips-langtags-00 is dated 2003-12-17. The final draft which became RFC 4646, draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14, was approved by IESG on 2005-11-15, or 699 days later. We did wait another 10 months for RFC numbers, but that time was mostly spent working on the relatively uncontroversial draft-4647 and planning for LTRU 2.0. Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-00, the first LTRU 2.0 draft, was dated 2006-09-11 -- perhaps coincidentally, the same date RFC 4646 was published. Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23 was approved by IESG on 2009-06-18 (the formal announcement came a week later). That's a span of 1,011 days, or 315 days longer for LTRU 2.0 than for LTRU 1.0. And of course, we're still waiting for RFC numbers. I'd be willing to bet we spent more days actually *working* on the first set of drafts than on the second, but we had a LOT of downtime over the past 3 years. Some issues were left unresolved and undiscussed for weeks at a time. -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ From prvs=146957a5ca=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk Thu Aug 6 01:30:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697CD3A6D44 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:30:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.078 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dvTxaqlBOvVH for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B50F3A6D19 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.6) with ESMTP id md50009788921.msg for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:51:03 +0100 X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:51:03 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145 X-Return-Path: prvs=146957a5ca=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ltru@ietf.org Received: from CPQ86763045110 ([83.67.121.192]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:30:22 +0100 From: "Debbie Garside" To: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:29:28 +0100 Message-ID: <0d4a01ca1670$03d6d6c0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcoWcAN4TaonpsvKRqSOYdCTdW9cHA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:51:05 +0100 Subject: [Ltru] ISO FDIS 639-6 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:35:08 -0000 Hi Just to let you know that the FDIS for 639-6 will be published on Thursday, August 6, 2009 -- According to ISO Central Secretariat. There is a 2 month comments/voting window where editorial comments may be received. Regards Debbie Garside Editor The World Language Documentation Centre Corner House Barn Street Haverfordwest Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW Wales UK Tel: 0044 1437 766441 Fax: 0044 1437 766173 Web: http://www.thewldc.org From mark.edward.davis@gmail.com Thu Aug 6 11:16:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B613A6BC7 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.076 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dK9EOX-dk22v for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.229]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2D33A6842 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1142485rvb.5 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=5lDnLOMKdvZIR9A7N/oWaX6c4vUXjxJrBr9JRiNuLkM=; b=BDjICLVXmAUUtmFvfVG4IvFChayDbwfYL9Ht0JAakvfKia7irJRoxp070+BmAOWXoy zSqePXn08rZA8C5NQQ5VXcJTvWKf4nVJFJ/A43sikYcjchr8Ye7S/GczeGowDZ17FGCO +RfHdv/ShHUMtXXRR/GRCq0REDbTJYiRd0GD0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=AqQvtlzy8b8IwPOGrcm3KCrjydwSCBQANYDkd2fx7LNuFhvlRA0UgB/GuaqZ/QHByd Cw+ON+W9hhpvyf5OH8qZHgRDAzglLsMF/twWZc7EPF7UUcBAQK8GgL8gzkywJ4hNB7Tq 7TY1860nos8vGZVOBYyEnwkVvU6m/xPVvfRQg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com Received: by 10.142.126.18 with SMTP id y18mr43033wfc.262.1249582576266; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:16:16 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 85e0d096cbf115ae Message-ID: <30b660a20908061116w60cfe214hf4b89bf783aeedf3@mail.gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDijJs=?= To: LTRU Working Group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd30bd4936ec604707d1d9e Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:16:16 -0000 --000e0cd30bd4936ec604707d1d9e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of the two.) We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The cod= e SF stands out. *Transitionally reserved* BU Burma CS SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO NT Neutral Zone *SF Finland Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI?? *TP East Timor YU Yugoslavia ZR Zaire I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn befor= e RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.htm)= . Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely has some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for two items it has "officiellement attribu=C3=A9". So for all we know, SF is just a mis= take in that table! Does anyone know more about the code SF? For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of which are obsolete codes. *Exceptionally Reserved* AC Ascension Island ok CP Clipperton Island ok DG Diego Garcia ok EA Ceuta, Melilla ok EU European Union ok *FX France, Metropolitan Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR *IC Canary Islands ok *SU USSR Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ KG LV LT MD TJ TM UA UZ *TA Tristan da Cunha ok *UK UNITED KINGDOM Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB* Mark --000e0cd30bd4936ec604707d1d9e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", o= r any confluence of the two.)

We're in the process of updating t= o the new IANA registry, and I was cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_de= coding_table. The code
SF stands out.

Transitionally reserved
BU=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Burma =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0
CS=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0
NT=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Neutral Zone =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0
SF=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Finland =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Not in IANA. CLD= R maps to FI??
TP=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 East Timor =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 YU=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Yugoslavia =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0
ZR=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= Zaire =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0

I had first presumed that SF is not inclu= ded because it was withdrawn before RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in <= a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3">http://en.wikipedia.org/= wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it exceptionally painful,= as we all know, to get access to 3166-3: http://www.iso.org/is= o/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.htm). Note that http://www.iso.org/= iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely has some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned",= for two items it has "officiellement attribu=C3=A9". So for all we kn= ow, SF is just a mistake in that table!

Does anyone know more about = the code SF?

For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserv= ed", two of which are obsolete codes.

Exceptionally Reserved
AC=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Ascension Island =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ok
CP=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Clipperton Island =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ok
DG=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Diego Garcia =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ok
EA=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Ceuta, Melilla =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ok
EU=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 European Union =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ok
FX=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 France, Metropolitan =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Deprecated = in IANA: IANA maps to FR
IC=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Canary Islands =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ok
SU=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 USSR =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Deprecated in IANA: CLDR ma= ps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ KG LV LT MD TJ TM UA UZ
TA=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Tristan da Cunha =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ok
UK=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 UNITED KINGDOM =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Not in IANA. CLDR= maps to GB

Mark
--000e0cd30bd4936ec604707d1d9e-- From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com Thu Aug 6 11:30:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CAC28C177 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:30:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTDM8mKWzk5R for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4BE3A6E39 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:29:28 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=H99/yzcgj2AINygTI15UI9GmPnWv2uE2ktU6nXobJGpogXhsQ3tba5KLlTpjA6VF; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [76.254.48.86] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MZ7iV-00080D-F2 for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:29:31 -0400 Message-ID: <001401ca16c4$286e5180$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <30b660a20908061116w60cfe214hf4b89bf783aeedf3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:31:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88884f945684cbf69685f5e6d1c42d6bf20693d2aef2f35b4d6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 76.254.48.86 Subject: Re: [Ltru] Any information on SF? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:30:02 -0000 Hi - As technical contributor... My suggestion would be to not worry about it. As co-chair... It's *way* too late and too unlikely to be the source of any kind of problem to open it up as an issue here. If someone thinks it would be *useful* to add it to the registry, ietf-languages@iana.org would be the place to do it. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Davis ⌛" To: "LTRU Working Group" Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:16 AM Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF? (That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of the two.) We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The code SF stands out. *Transitionally reserved* BU Burma CS SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO NT Neutral Zone *SF Finland Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI?? *TP East Timor YU Yugoslavia ZR Zaire I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn before RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.htm). Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely has some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for two items it has "officiellement attribué". So for all we know, SF is just a mistake in that table! Does anyone know more about the code SF? For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of which are obsolete codes. *Exceptionally Reserved* AC Ascension Island ok CP Clipperton Island ok DG Diego Garcia ok EA Ceuta, Melilla ok EU European Union ok *FX France, Metropolitan Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR *IC Canary Islands ok *SU USSR Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ KG LV LT MD TJ TM UA UZ *TA Tristan da Cunha ok *UK UNITED KINGDOM Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB* Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > From mark.edward.davis@gmail.com Thu Aug 6 11:34:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76213A6E39 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:34:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.876 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.876 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BjKnepe3768l for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F7E28C16D for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so415714wff.31 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:34:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=KQXBn17ABKt3fTUbeHsrlHyFg+KcvKqTUf/UDI6hrlM=; b=v1vk3LfSGB1TRzxkaJrC33Hfu4Nn8EXPQtDfS2yjhf2FPsHPJsRRn1N/IJKz+GyQwq J7yVXC6OzGetQfdqG+8WOIhbmEYAoBPoH8FkiljIvJtzFxMYPoj+0Kfh0xhkb77PtOKa lCI01V77YoPkUQRaWm/LdyeONGeIL0/sGMfXI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=WRShc7Q4AMm2F7u+w3d07QwRe9GJiIpV7qgzPN23Gp2Ir3C4/INdmb7GnkBi4pFjYV YhFJtlkStdNPcEO6vO1gjBvBuwi6P6IvHlk93bseVeTKbSS2vXKAmluA+/yisSkNi2JA 4oKFYxDslPt+TwBzYPH3FQgLBQ/unsyKxby9Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com Received: by 10.142.126.18 with SMTP id y18mr47873wfc.262.1249583661695; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:34:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <001401ca16c4$286e5180$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> References: <30b660a20908061116w60cfe214hf4b89bf783aeedf3@mail.gmail.com> <001401ca16c4$286e5180$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:34:21 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 89a19fe957ffdec1 Message-ID: <30b660a20908061134p1daa02cau9536cf302214d627@mail.gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDijJs=?= To: Randy Presuhn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd30bd445c64004707d5e7a Cc: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] Any information on SF? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:34:42 -0000 --000e0cd30bd445c64004707d5e7a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am NOT suggesting adding it to the registry. I just wanted to find out what it is, to see if we need a mapping in CLDR. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:31, Randy Presuhn w= rote: > Hi - > > As technical contributor... > > My suggestion would be to not worry about it. > > As co-chair... > > It's *way* too late and too unlikely to be the source of > any kind of problem to open it up as an issue here. If > someone thinks it would be *useful* to add it to the registry, > ietf-languages@iana.org would be the place to do it. > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Davis =E2=8C=9B" > To: "LTRU Working Group" > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:16 AM > Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF? > > > (That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of th= e > two.) > > We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was > cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The > code > > SF stands out. > > *Transitionally reserved* > BU Burma > CS SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO > NT Neutral Zone > *SF Finland Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI?? > *TP East Timor > YU Yugoslavia > ZR Zaire > > I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn > before > RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it > exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3: > http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.ht= m > ). > Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely has > some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for two ite= ms > it has "officiellement attribu=C3=A9". So for all we know, SF is just a m= istake > in that table! > > Does anyone know more about the code SF? > > For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of which are > obsolete codes. > > *Exceptionally Reserved* > AC Ascension Island ok > CP Clipperton Island ok > DG Diego Garcia ok > EA Ceuta, Melilla ok > EU European Union ok > *FX France, Metropolitan Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR > *IC Canary Islands ok > *SU USSR Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ KG = LV > LT MD TJ TM UA UZ > *TA Tristan da Cunha ok > *UK UNITED KINGDOM Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB* > > Mark > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltru mailing list > > Ltru@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > --000e0cd30bd445c64004707d5e7a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am NOT suggesting adding it to the registry. I just wanted to find out wh= at it is, to see if we need a mapping in CLDR.

Mark

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:31, Randy Pres= uhn <r= andy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hi -

As technical contributor...

My suggestion would be to not worry about it.

As co-chair...

It's *way* too late and too unlikely to be the source of
any kind of problem to open it up as an issue here. =C2=A0If
someone thinks it would be *useful* to add it to the registry,
ietf-languages@iana.org woul= d be the place to do it.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Davis =E2=8C=9B" <mark@macchiato.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltr= u@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF?


(That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", o= r any confluence of the
two.)

We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.= The code

SF stands out.

*Transitionally reserved*
BU =C2=A0 =C2=A0Burma
CS =C2=A0 =C2=A0SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
NT =C2=A0 =C2=A0Neutral Zone
*SF =C2=A0 =C2=A0Finland =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI??
*TP =C2=A0 =C2=A0East Timor
YU =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yugoslavia
ZR =C2=A0 =C2=A0Zaire

I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn befor= e
RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in
http:= //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it
exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3:
http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/backgrou= nd_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.htm).
Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definite= ly has
some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for= two items
it has "officiellement attribu=C3=A9". So for all we know, SF is = just a mistake
in that table!

Does anyone know more about the code SF?

For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of whi= ch are
obsolete codes.

*Exceptionally Reserved*
AC =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ascension Island =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
CP =C2=A0 =C2=A0Clipperton Island =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
DG =C2=A0 =C2=A0Diego Garcia =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
EA =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ceuta, Melilla =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
EU =C2=A0 =C2=A0European Union =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
*FX =C2=A0 =C2=A0France, Metropolitan =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Deprecated in IANA: IAN= A maps to FR
*IC =C2=A0 =C2=A0Canary Islands =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
*SU =C2=A0 =C2=A0USSR =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM = AZ BY EE GE KZ KG LV
LT MD TJ TM UA UZ
*TA =C2=A0 =C2=A0Tristan da Cunha =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
*UK =C2=A0 =C2=A0UNITED KINGDOM =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB*=

Mark



---------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------


> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

--000e0cd30bd445c64004707d5e7a-- From kent.karlsson14@comhem.se Thu Aug 6 11:52:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8B63A6C51 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:52:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.699, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xn6Uf9riwxdh for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7244228C151 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c83-248-191-93.bredband.comhem.se ([83.248.191.93]:37848 helo=[192.168.1.2]) by ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1MZ84H-00058u-Co; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:52:09 +0200 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:51:55 +0200 From: Kent Karlsson To: Mark Davis , Randy Presuhn Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Any information on SF? Thread-Index: AcoWxvfJtiJc6hwWnEGWUY9CexbFrQ== In-Reply-To: <30b660a20908061134p1daa02cau9536cf302214d627@mail.gmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3332436721_16054160" X-Originating-IP: 83.248.191.93 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1MZ84H-00058u-Co. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net 1MZ84H-00058u-Co 2f7f3d8c105b7703abe1a88175b1c910 Cc: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] Any information on SF? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:52:33 -0000 > Detta meddelande r i MIME-format. P grund av att din e-postlsare inte frstr detta format, kommer hela eller delar av detta meddelande inte att vara lsbart. --B_3332436721_16054160 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable According to=20 http://www.iso.org/iso/support/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1= _ decoding_table.htm#SF, it appears to have been withdrawn in 1995. SF Finland 1995-09 Why was there ever such a code? Well, "SF" would be an abbreviation for "Suomi/Finland". "Suomi" is "Finland" in Finnish. Erkki might know more. I've seen it recommended/used way back when (presumably before 1996...). It was used for vehicle country codes too (current code "FIN", according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_vehicle_registration_cod= e s). Both sets of country codes (ISO, vehicle) have been used for paper mail. /kent k Den 2009-08-06 20.34, skrev "Mark Davis" : > I am NOT suggesting adding it to the registry. I just wanted to find out = what > it is, to see if we need a mapping in CLDR. >=20 > Mark >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:31, Randy Presuhn > wrote: >> Hi - >>=20 >> As technical contributor... >>=20 >> My suggestion would be to not worry about it. >>=20 >> As co-chair... >>=20 >> It's *way* too late and too unlikely to be the source of >> any kind of problem to open it up as an issue here. =C2=A0If >> someone thinks it would be *useful* to add it to the registry, >> ietf-languages@iana.org would be the place to do it. >>=20 >> Randy >>=20 >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mark Davis =E2=8C=9B" >> To: "LTRU Working Group" >> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:16 AM >> Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF? >>=20 >>=20 >> (That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of t= he >> two.) >>=20 >> We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was >> cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The = code >>=20 >> SF stands out. >>=20 >> *Transitionally reserved* >> BU =C2=A0 =C2=A0Burma >> CS =C2=A0 =C2=A0SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO >> NT =C2=A0 =C2=A0Neutral Zone >> *SF =C2=A0 =C2=A0Finland =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI?? >> *TP =C2=A0 =C2=A0East Timor >> YU =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yugoslavia >> ZR =C2=A0 =C2=A0Zaire >>=20 >> I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn be= fore >> RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it >> exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3: >> http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.h= tm). >> Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely ha= s >> some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for two it= ems >> it has "officiellement attribu=C3=A9". So for all we know, SF is just a mist= ake >> in that table! >>=20 >> Does anyone know more about the code SF? >>=20 >> For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of which are >> obsolete codes. >>=20 >> *Exceptionally Reserved* >> AC =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ascension Island =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok >> CP =C2=A0 =C2=A0Clipperton Island =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok >> DG =C2=A0 =C2=A0Diego Garcia =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok >> EA =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ceuta, Melilla =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok >> EU =C2=A0 =C2=A0European Union =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok >> *FX =C2=A0 =C2=A0France, Metropolitan =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR >> *IC =C2=A0 =C2=A0Canary Islands =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok >> *SU =C2=A0 =C2=A0USSR =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE K= Z KG LV >> LT MD TJ TM UA UZ >> *TA =C2=A0 =C2=A0Tristan da Cunha =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok >> *UK =C2=A0 =C2=A0UNITED KINGDOM =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB* >>=20 >> Mark >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- >> --- >>=20 >>=20 >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Ltru mailing list >>> > Ltru@ietf.org >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru >>> > >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ltru mailing list >> Ltru@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --B_3332436721_16054160 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Ltru] Any information on SF?
According to http://www.iso.org/iso/support= /country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm#SF,
it appears to have been withdrawn in 1995.

SF  Finland       =   1995-09

Why was there ever such a code? Well, "SF" would be an abbreviati= on for "Suomi/Finland".
"Suomi" is "Finland" in Finnish. Erkki might know more.=

I've seen it recommended/used way back when (presumably before 1996...). It= was used for vehicle country
codes too (current code "FIN", according to http://en= .wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_vehicle_registration_codes). Both sets of country codes (ISO, vehicle) have been used for paper mail.
    /kent k



Den 2009-08-06 20.34, skrev "Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com>:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>I am NOT suggesting adding it to the registry. I= just wanted to find out what it is, to see if we need a mapping in CLDR.
Mark


On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:31, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote:
<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>Hi -

As technical contributor...

My suggestion would be to not worry about it.

As co-chair...

It's *way* too late and too unlikely to be the source of
any kind of problem to open it up as an issue here. =C2=A0If
someone thinks it would be *useful* to add it to the registry,
ietf-languages@iana.org would be the = place to do it.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Davis =E2=8C=9B" <mark@macc= hiato.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.or= g>
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF?


(That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or an= y confluence of the
two.)

We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was
cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The code

SF stands out.

*Transitionally reserved*
BU =C2=A0 =C2=A0Burma
CS =C2=A0 =C2=A0SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
NT =C2=A0 =C2=A0Neutral Zone
*SF =C2=A0 =C2=A0Finland =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI??
*TP =C2=A0 =C2=A0East Timor
YU =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yugoslavia
ZR =C2=A0 =C2=A0Zaire

I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn befor= e
RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in
http://en.wikipedia.org/w= iki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it
exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3:
http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_31= 66-3.htm).
Note that http:/= /www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely has
some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for= two items
it has "officiellement attribué". So for all we know, SF i= s just a mistake
in that table!

Does anyone know more about the code SF?

For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of whi= ch are
obsolete codes.

*Exceptionally Reserved*
AC =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ascension Island =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
CP =C2=A0 =C2=A0Clipperton Island =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
DG =C2=A0 =C2=A0Diego Garcia =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
EA =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ceuta, Melilla =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
EU =C2=A0 =C2=A0European Union =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
*FX =C2=A0 =C2=A0France, Metropolitan =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR
*IC =C2=A0 =C2=A0Canary Islands =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
*SU =C2=A0 =C2=A0USSR =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ K= G LV
LT MD TJ TM UA UZ
*TA =C2=A0 =C2=A0Tristan da Cunha =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ok
*UK =C2=A0 =C2=A0UNITED KINGDOM =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB*

Mark



---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----


> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.= org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/ltru
=

___________= ____________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/ltru
--B_3332436721_16054160-- From jkorpela@cs.tut.fi Thu Aug 6 11:57:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77A73A68CC for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:57:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dbFmWdFBXkEQ for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cs.tut.fi (mail.cs.tut.fi [IPv6:2001:708:310:4::42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2DA28C187 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amavis2.cs.tut.fi (amavis2.cs.tut.fi [130.230.4.70]) by mail.cs.tut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61606A8B for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:57:59 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail.cs.tut.fi ([130.230.4.42]) by amavis2.cs.tut.fi (amavis2.cs.tut.fi [130.230.4.70]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24049-12 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:57:58 +0300 (EEST) Received: from JukanPC (a88-114-29-18.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.29.18]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cs.tut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBDFA8A for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:57:58 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: From: "Jukka K. Korpela" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <30b660a20908061116w60cfe214hf4b89bf783aeedf3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <30b660a20908061116w60cfe214hf4b89bf783aeedf3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:56:39 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.20661 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16669 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2 Subject: Re: [Ltru] Any information on SF? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:57:58 -0000 Mark Davis ⌛ wrote: > I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn > before RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. "SF" was previously used as a country code for Finland in some contexts, like car plates and postal addresses. I would expect such usage to be so old and dated that it can be ignored. In particular, in postal addresses, it was replaced in 1993 by "FIN" (which in turn was replaced by "FI" in 2004). The Internet domain for Finland has been ".fi" from the beginning. ("SF" was formed from "Suomi Finland", i.e. from the name of the country in its two official languages, Finnish and Swedish. We often thought that others thought that it actually came from "Soviet Finland"; I'm half serious in suggesting that this was one of the reasons for moving to "FIN" or "FI".) -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ From cowan@ccil.org Thu Aug 6 12:08:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4430A28C17C for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.124 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.825, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C4iaUFY-2czz for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AD53A6E26 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MZ8K5-00047u-O4; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:08:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 15:08:21 -0400 To: Mark Davis =?utf-8?B?4j8/?= Message-ID: <20090806190821.GI2904@mercury.ccil.org> References: <30b660a20908061116w60cfe214hf4b89bf783aeedf3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <30b660a20908061116w60cfe214hf4b89bf783aeedf3@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: John Cowan Cc: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] Any information on SF? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:08:20 -0000 Mark Davis ?? scripsit: > (That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of the > two.) I shudder to think what "san fiction" would be about (changing a litterbox?), and as for "SAN fiction", I can scarcely conceive anything more tedious. :-) > We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was > cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The code > > SF stands out. The "decoding table" at http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm gives the enigmatic date "1995-09" in the Notes column for SF, suggesting that the code was reserved at that time. However, the code FI has been around since at least 1986, when the Finland domain name of .fi was established, and quite likely much earlier. I'd guess that the code stands for "Suomi/Finland". -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes. From cewcathar@hotmail.com Thu Aug 6 16:40:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33153A6C29 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:40:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2cKAh8Xq9Bna for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.102]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59BF3A68D2 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU109-W6 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:40:12 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_3da3c37a-3ca4-4dd0-9f21-5ea0c7b14d4b_" X-Originating-IP: [168.13.191.67] From: CE Whitehead To: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:40:11 -0400 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2009 23:40:12.0086 (UTC) FILETIME=[3DA77560:01CA16EF] Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:40:10 -0000 --_3da3c37a-3ca4-4dd0-9f21-5ea0c7b14d4b_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi=2C RFC 3282 seemed quite short=2C the one easy read I've had here. From= : "Doug Ewell" =20 =20 Date: Wed=2C 5 Aug 2009 19:37:38 -0600=20 =20 "Phillips=2C Addison" wrote: >> Ever the optimist=2C I would hope that such a revision wouldn't require = the level of effort needed for the BCP 47 work.=20 >You never know. In September 2005 on ietf-languages=2C Peter Constable > mentioned the upcoming 4646bis effort and said:=20 > "For my part=2C I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much* shor= ter > time that 3066bis has taken."=20 > As we now know=2C 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646. > But a quick look at RFC 3282--which is possible=2C since it's only 8 page= s=20 > long including boilerplate and page breaks It's short! > --suggests that the following > changes might be all that is necessary:=20 > * Update reference to ABNF and remove EBNF in sections 2 and 3. > * Update examples in Section 2.1 using i-languages to use ISO 639-based= =2C > grandfathered=2C hypothetical 5-to-8-character registered=2C or private- > use tags instead. Yes=2C for the most part we need current examples. Thanks=2C C. E. Whitehea= dcewcathar@hotmail.com > * Consider a simple update to Section 4=2C possibly just a pointer to the > security section of 4646bis. > * As suggested by CE Whitehead=2C update reference to Language "Tag" > Reviewer (which was correct at the time 3282 was written) to refer to > the Language "Subtag" Reviewer instead. (On the other hand=2C it's just > an acknowledgement.) How do you keep all this in memory ??? > * Split references into normative and informative. > * Update [TAGS] reference to 3066 to point to 4646bis instead. > * Consider removing references to ISO standards=2C as the syntax and > content of tags are fully defined by 4646bis and the Registry. > This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an individual to > prepare and submit an update without experiencing the surreal delays of > the LTRU process=2C and without being subjected to undue slings and arrow= s.=20 -- > Doug Ewell * Thornton=2C Colorado=2C USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 --_3da3c37a-3ca4-4dd0-9f21-5ea0c7b14d4b_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 =3BHi=2C RFC 3282 seemed quite short= =2C the one easy read I've had here. =3B

From: "Doug Ewell" = <=3Bdoug at ewellic.org>=3B <= BR> =3B
Date: Wed=2C 5 Aug 2009 19:37:38 -0600
 =3B
"Phillips=2C Addison" <=3Baddison at amazon dot com=
>=3B wrote:
>=3B>=3B Ever the optimist=2C I would h= ope that such a revision wouldn't require the level of effort need= ed for the BCP 47 work. 
>=3BYou never know. In September 2005 on ietf-languages=2C Peter =
Constable
>=3B =3Bmentioned the upcoming 4646bis=
 effort and said: 
>=3B "For my part=2C I hope that =
*that* revision is completed in a *much* shorter
>=
=3B =3Btime that 3066bis has taken." 
=
>=3B * Update reference to ABNF and remove EBNF in sections 2 and 3.

>=3B * Update examples in Section 2.1 using i-languages to use ISO 639-ba=
sed=2C
>=3B  grandfathered=2C hypothetical 5-to-8-character registered=2C or pri=
vate-
>=3B  use tags instead.
Yes=2C for the most part we need current examples.
 =3B
Thanks=2C
 =3B
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
>=3B * Consider a simple update to Section 4=2C possibly just =
a pointer to the
>=3B security section of 4646bis.

>=3B * As suggested by CE Whitehead=2C update reference to Language "Tag"
>=3B Reviewer (which was correct at the time 3282 was written) to refer t=
o
>=3B the Language "Subtag" Reviewer instead.  (On the other hand=2C it's =
just
>=3B an acknowledgement.)
How do you keep all this in memory ???
>=3B * Split references into normative and informative.

>=3B * Update [TAGS] reference to 3066 to point to 4646bis instead.

>=3B * Consider removing references to ISO standards=2C as the syntax and
>=3B content of tags are fully defined by 4646bis and the Registry.


>=3B This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an in=
dividual to
>=3B =3Bprepare and submit an update=
 without experiencing the surreal delays of
>=3B =3B=
the LTRU process=2C and without being subjected to undue sling=
s and arrows. 
--
>=3B Doug Ewell  *  Thornton=2C Colorado=2C USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14


=

--_3da3c37a-3ca4-4dd0-9f21-5ea0c7b14d4b_--

From cewcathar@hotmail.com  Mon Aug 10 15:36:47 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D5B3A6F2C for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.387
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.389, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9-kaJirx6pAH for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77343A6F28 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU109-W2 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);  Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:36:49 -0700
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_55285ce7-b19d-48e2-a3bf-793438b8d343_"
X-Originating-IP: [168.13.191.67]
From: CE Whitehead 
To: 
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:36:49 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2009 22:36:49.0712 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CEA3B00:01CA1A0B]
Subject: [Ltru] Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was: Requests that have been on hold)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:36:47 -0000

--_55285ce7-b19d-48e2-a3bf-793438b8d343_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_55285ce7-b19d-48e2-a3bf-793438b8d343_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_55285ce7-b19d-48e2-a3bf-793438b8d343_--

From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com  Mon Aug 10 16:22:13 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145B33A6F21 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x-ZB6ivUsD-o for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1413A6C5E for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=t+4A4C02gbhq5DTxdbxY76Uqbbs8LhLZmKU+AP3YOx4lKBTcNMzYGWKyYLqb7PCZ; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.41.52.188] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MaeBz-0000MF-Pb for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:22:16 -0400
Message-ID: <002901ca1a11$bbce34e0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" 
To: "LTRU Working Group" 
References: 
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:24:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88884f945684cbf6968b1ef591644d39f83950052ff630605e6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.41.52.188
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was: Requests that have been on hold)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:22:13 -0000

Hi -

As co-chair...

Since it relates to the particulars of a specific subtag registration
request, this thread does not belong on the ltru@ietf.org mailing list.

Randy

> From: "CE Whitehead" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 3:36 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was: Requests that have been on hold)
>
>
> Hi.  I see that Wikipedia in fact classifies Erzgebirgisch as Franconian:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzgebirgisch
>
>
>
> This is the Wikipedia description:
>
>
>
> "Erzgebirgisch (or Aarzgebèèrgsch, pronounced [aːɰtskəpɛːɰjkʂ]) is an Upper German dialect, probably belonging to the Franconian
dialect group, spoken mainly in the central Erzgebirge (Ore Mountains). It has received relatively little academic attention. Due to
the high mobility of the population and the resulting contact with Upper Saxon, the high emigration rate and last, but not least,
its low mutual intelligibility with other dialects, the number of speakers is decreasing."
>
>
>
> I'm sorry that I mentioned language genealogy; I agree with Randy that it is more important to construct a tag so that speakers of
the language/dialect will be able to use search algorithms to find a mutually comprehensible dialect/language when theirs is not
available (if there is one):
>
>
>
> Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
> Mon Aug 10 19:44:38 CEST 2009
>
>
>
> > There is not a *requirement* for the tags to reflect genealogy.
> > Though it *can* be helpful, I think the current state of a language
> > and what other language it most closely resembles are more useful
> > when we're constructing tags in terms of "X is a variant of Y".
>
>
>
>
> Two prefixes thus make sense if there are really two varieties of "Erzgebirgisch."
>
>
>
> Another option (one we could have explored a long time ago but apparently decided against doing) is to immediately register the
subtag with a prefix of 'gem' and then add additional prefixes as appropriate once the linguistic research is completed.
>
>
>
> I do not see any reason to wait forever for linguistic research for a subtag.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> C. E. Whitehead
>
> cewcathar@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>



From gerard.lang@insee.fr  Wed Aug 12 03:05:12 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15593A67F5 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lc5qhQ2fzyuh for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes2.insee.fr (hermes2.insee.fr [194.254.38.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D703A67AD for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from evariste.insee.fr (unknown [194.254.38.143]) by hermes2.insee.fr (Insee Mail server) with ESMTP id C198A3BA269; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:53:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by evariste.insee.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10DC794020; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:53:12 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at insee.fr
Received: from evariste.insee.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (evariste.insee.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xKaomE5R56IG; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:53:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from s90x2smtp.ad.insee.intra (unknown [194.254.38.144]) by evariste.insee.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66472794024; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:53:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from S90X2HUB1.ad.insee.intra ([10.90.200.52]) by s90x2smtp.ad.insee.intra with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);  Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:53:12 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:53:12 +0200
Message-ID: <68723E6B2E0EDC4999504D17DDE8F94906E35E1F@S90X2HUB1.ad.insee.intra>
In-Reply-To: 
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Status of SF new clause   inside ISO 3166-1///RE: Ltru Digest, Vol 54, Issue 2
thread-index: AcoWxKCACMOs+AIQToueNwvmwrToNgEUWiqg
References: 
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lang_G=E9rard?= 
To: , 
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2009 07:53:12.0545 (UTC) FILETIME=[F10C0D10:01CA1B21]
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lang_G=E9rard?= 
Subject: [Ltru] Status of SF new clause inside ISO 3166-1///RE: Ltru Digest, Vol 54, Issue 2
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:05:12 -0000

Dear All,

0-In fact the alpha-2 code element "SF" never was an official entry of =
ISO 3166, and appears in the decoding table as a reserved code element =
only for historic reasons.
So that if the case of "SF" inside ISO 3166(-1) is rather singular, the =
decodong table is nevertheless quite correct..

1-SF (for "Suomli/Finland") was  the initial distinguishing sign =
declared by Finland as a contracting party of the 1949 convention on =
road traffic, and seems to have been replaced by FIN within the 1968 =
convention on road traffic that replaced the 1949 one, but this change =
happened only in 1994 (I am not sure that this resum=E9 is completely =
accurate !).=20

2-So that, inside the ISO Recommendation R 639 "Symbols for languages, =
countries and authorities" that was published by ISO in November 1967 =
and is the common ancestor of ISO 639 and ISO 3166,  the country symbol =
for Finland is "SF" (UDC 480), and the symbol for Finnish is "Fi" (UDC =
945.41), the combination "Fi/SF/" being given as an example inside the =
Turanian language family.

3-When the first edition of ISO 3166 was published, on 1974-12-15, the =
code elements retained for the representation of the country name =
"Finland/Finlande" were based on the distinguishing sign for vehicles =
plate "FIN" that was yet officially in vigor, so that (FI, FIN) were =
choosen.

4-The second edition of ISO 3166, published on 1981-05-15, added the =
numeric-3 code issued by the UNSD (United Nations Statistical Division) =
inside the standard, so that Finland is represented by (FI, FIN, 246). A =
new clause "6.4 reservation of codes" was added inside the normative =
text of the standard, whose 6.4.2 writes:
"6.4.2 For an indeterminate period, certain code designations existing =
at the time of publication of this International Standard but differing =
from those established in the Standard should not be used for =
designating others entities. This applies to:
- Country designations reported under the conventions on Road Traffic =
(1949 and 1968);
- Codes allocated by the World Intellectual property Organization for =
specific purposes;
- Identification marking code for freight containers (see ISO 6346)..

5- It is on the basis of this clause 6.4.2 that ISO 3166/MA decided to =
include the alpha-2 code element "SF" inside the initial list of =
indetermined reserved alpha-2 ISO 3166(-1) code elements. When SF became =
replaced by FIN for finnish vehicles, ISO 3166/MA decided on 1995-09 to =
transfer code element "SF" from the list of indeterminately reserved ISO =
3166-1 code elements to the list of transitionally reserved alpha-2 ISO =
3166-1 code elements

Bien cordialement.
G=E9rard LANG



-----Message d'origine-----
De : ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de =
ltru-request@ietf.org
Envoy=E9 : jeudi 6 ao=FBt 2009 20:35
=C0 : ltru@ietf.org
Objet : Ltru Digest, Vol 54, Issue 2

If you have received this digest without all the individual message =
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list =
subscription.  To do so, go to=20

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get =
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option globally =
for all the list digests you receive at this point.



Send Ltru mailing list submissions to
	ltru@ietf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ltru-request@ietf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	ltru-owner@ietf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than =
"Re: Contents of Ltru digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: RFC 3282: should we revise it? (Doug Ewell)
   2. Re: RFC 3282: should we revise it? (Phillips, Addison)
   3. Re: RFC 3282: should we revise it? (Doug Ewell)
   4. ISO FDIS 639-6 (Debbie Garside)
   5. Any information on SF? (Mark Davis ?)
   6. Re: Any information on SF? (Randy Presuhn)
   7. Re: Any information on SF? (Mark Davis ?)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 19:37:38 -0600
From: "Doug Ewell" 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
To: "LTRU Working Group" 
Message-ID: <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=3Dflowed; charset=3D"utf-8";
	reply-type=3Doriginal

"Phillips, Addison"  wrote:

> Ever the optimist, I would hope that such a revision wouldn't require=20
> the level of effort needed for the BCP 47 work.

You never know.  In September 2005 on ietf-languages, Peter Constable =
mentioned the upcoming 4646bis effort and said:

"For my part, I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much* =
shorter time that 3066bis has taken."

As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646.

But a quick look at RFC 3282--which is possible, since it's only 8 pages =
long including boilerplate and page breaks--suggests that the following =
changes might be all that is necessary:

* Update reference to ABNF and remove EBNF in sections 2 and 3.

* Update examples in Section 2.1 using i-languages to use ISO 639-based,
  grandfathered, hypothetical 5-to-8-character registered, or private-
  use tags instead.

* Consider a simple update to Section 4, possibly just a pointer to the
  security section of 4646bis.

* As suggested by CE Whitehead, update reference to Language "Tag"
  Reviewer (which was correct at the time 3282 was written) to refer to
  the Language "Subtag" Reviewer instead.  (On the other hand, it's just
  an acknowledgement.)

* Split references into normative and informative.

* Update [TAGS] reference to 3066 to point to 4646bis instead.

* Consider removing references to ISO standards, as the syntax and
  content of tags are fully defined by 4646bis and the Registry.

This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an individual to =
prepare and submit an update without experiencing the surreal delays of =
the LTRU process, and without being subjected to undue slings and =
arrows.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ?



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:27 -0700
From: "Phillips, Addison" 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
To: Doug Ewell , LTRU Working Group 
Message-ID:
	<4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AC46657F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"

>=20
> "For my part, I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much*
> shorter time that 3066bis has taken."
>=20
> As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646. You forget =
that there were a dozen or so draft-davis-phillips documents before the =
WG even started.

No it didn't. Mark and I started 4646 on the very first day of the Iraq =
war.

> This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an individual
> to
> prepare and submit an update without experiencing the surreal
> delays of
> the LTRU process, and without being subjected to undue slings and
> arrows.
>=20

Well, as noted, "ever the optimist".....

Addison

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:28:38 -0600
From: "Doug Ewell" 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
To: "LTRU Working Group" 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=3Dflowed; charset=3D"utf-8";
	reply-type=3Doriginal

"Phillips, Addison"  wrote (slightly=20
rearranged):

>> As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646.
>
> No it didn't. Mark and I started 4646 on the very first day of the=20
> Iraq war. You forget that there were a dozen or so=20
> draft-davis-phillips documents before the WG even started.

I didn't forget.  My copy of draft-phillips-langtags-00 is dated=20
2003-12-17.  The final draft which became RFC 4646,=20
draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14, was approved by IESG on 2005-11-15, or 699=20
days later.  We did wait another 10 months for RFC numbers, but that=20
time was mostly spent working on the relatively uncontroversial=20
draft-4647 and planning for LTRU 2.0.

Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-00, the first LTRU 2.0 draft, was dated=20
2006-09-11 -- perhaps coincidentally, the same date RFC 4646 was=20
published.  Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23 was approved by IESG on=20
2009-06-18 (the formal announcement came a week later).  That's a span=20
of 1,011 days, or 315 days longer for LTRU 2.0 than for LTRU 1.0.  And=20
of course, we're still waiting for RFC numbers.

I'd be willing to bet we spent more days actually *working* on the first =

set of drafts than on the second, but we had a LOT of downtime over the=20
past 3 years.  Some issues were left unresolved and undiscussed for=20
weeks at a time.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ?



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:29:28 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" 
Subject: [Ltru] ISO FDIS 639-6
To: 
Message-ID: <0d4a01ca1670$03d6d6c0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>


Hi

Just to let you know that the FDIS for 639-6 will be published on =
Thursday,
August 6, 2009 -- According to ISO Central Secretariat.  There is a 2 =
month
comments/voting window where editorial comments may be received.

Regards


Debbie Garside
Editor

The World Language Documentation Centre
Corner House
Barn Street
Haverfordwest
Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW
Wales UK

Tel: 0044 1437 766441
Fax: 0044 1437 766173

Web: http://www.thewldc.org






------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:16:16 -0700
From: Mark Davis ? 
Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF?
To: LTRU Working Group 
Message-ID:
	<30b660a20908061116w60cfe214hf4b89bf783aeedf3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"

(That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of =
the
two.)

We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was
cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The =
code

SF stands out.

*Transitionally reserved*
BU    Burma
CS    SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
NT    Neutral Zone
*SF    Finland     Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI??
*TP    East Timor
YU    Yugoslavia
ZR    Zaire

I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn =
before
RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it
exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3:
http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.ht=
m).
Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely =
has
some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for two =
items
it has "officiellement attribu?". So for all we know, SF is just a =
mistake
in that table!

Does anyone know more about the code SF?

For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of which are
obsolete codes.

*Exceptionally Reserved*
AC    Ascension Island     ok
CP    Clipperton Island     ok
DG    Diego Garcia     ok
EA    Ceuta, Melilla     ok
EU    European Union     ok
*FX    France, Metropolitan     Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR
*IC    Canary Islands     ok
*SU    USSR     Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ KG =
LV
LT MD TJ TM UA UZ
*TA    Tristan da Cunha     ok
*UK    UNITED KINGDOM     Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB*

Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: =


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:31:46 -0700
From: "Randy Presuhn" 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Any information on SF?
To: "LTRU Working Group" 
Message-ID: <001401ca16c4$286e5180$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=3D"utf-8"

Hi -

As technical contributor...

My suggestion would be to not worry about it.

As co-chair...

It's *way* too late and too unlikely to be the source of
any kind of problem to open it up as an issue here.  If
someone thinks it would be *useful* to add it to the registry,
ietf-languages@iana.org would be the place to do it.

Randy

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Mark Davis ?" 
To: "LTRU Working Group" 
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF?


(That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of =
the
two.)

We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was
cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. The =
code

SF stands out.

*Transitionally reserved*
BU    Burma
CS    SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
NT    Neutral Zone
*SF    Finland     Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI??
*TP    East Timor
YU    Yugoslavia
ZR    Zaire

I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn =
before
RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes it
exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3:
http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.ht=
m).
Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely =
has
some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for two =
items
it has "officiellement attribu?". So for all we know, SF is just a =
mistake
in that table!

Does anyone know more about the code SF?

For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of which are
obsolete codes.

*Exceptionally Reserved*
AC    Ascension Island     ok
CP    Clipperton Island     ok
DG    Diego Garcia     ok
EA    Ceuta, Melilla     ok
EU    European Union     ok
*FX    France, Metropolitan     Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR
*IC    Canary Islands     ok
*SU    USSR     Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ KG =
LV
LT MD TJ TM UA UZ
*TA    Tristan da Cunha     ok
*UK    UNITED KINGDOM     Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB*

Mark



-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------


> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>




------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:34:21 -0700
From: Mark Davis ? 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Any information on SF?
To: Randy Presuhn 
Cc: LTRU Working Group 
Message-ID:
	<30b660a20908061134p1daa02cau9536cf302214d627@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"

I am NOT suggesting adding it to the registry. I just wanted to find out
what it is, to see if we need a mapping in CLDR.

Mark


On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:31, Randy Presuhn =
wrote:

> Hi -
>
> As technical contributor...
>
> My suggestion would be to not worry about it.
>
> As co-chair...
>
> It's *way* too late and too unlikely to be the source of
> any kind of problem to open it up as an issue here.  If
> someone thinks it would be *useful* to add it to the registry,
> ietf-languages@iana.org would be the place to do it.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Davis ?" 
> To: "LTRU Working Group" 
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:16 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Any information on SF?
>
>
> (That's not "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction", or any confluence of =
the
> two.)
>
> We're in the process of updating to the new IANA registry, and I was
> cross-checking to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table. =
The
> code
>
> SF stands out.
>
> *Transitionally reserved*
> BU    Burma
> CS    SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
> NT    Neutral Zone
> *SF    Finland     Not in IANA. CLDR maps to FI??
> *TP    East Timor
> YU    Yugoslavia
> ZR    Zaire
>
> I had first presumed that SF is not included because it was withdrawn
> before
> RFC1766. But SF is not even listed in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-3 as a retired code. (ISO makes =
it
> exceptionally painful, as we all know, to get access to 3166-3:
> =
http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/background_on_iso_3166/iso_3166-3.ht=
m
> ).
> Note that http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table definitely =
has
> some oddities. For example, instead of "officially assigned", for two =
items
> it has "officiellement attribu?". So for all we know, SF is just a =
mistake
> in that table!
>
> Does anyone know more about the code SF?
>
> For comparison, here are the "Exceptionally Reserved", two of which =
are
> obsolete codes.
>
> *Exceptionally Reserved*
> AC    Ascension Island     ok
> CP    Clipperton Island     ok
> DG    Diego Garcia     ok
> EA    Ceuta, Melilla     ok
> EU    European Union     ok
> *FX    France, Metropolitan     Deprecated in IANA: IANA maps to FR
> *IC    Canary Islands     ok
> *SU    USSR     Deprecated in IANA: CLDR maps to RU AM AZ BY EE GE KZ =
KG LV
> LT MD TJ TM UA UZ
> *TA    Tristan da Cunha     ok
> *UK    UNITED KINGDOM     Not in IANA. CLDR maps to GB*
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> =
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: =


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


End of Ltru Digest, Vol 54, Issue 2
***********************************

From ishida@w3.org  Thu Aug 13 10:01:30 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F72A3A6C43 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.185
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WYid5VU1rNtO for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homer.w3.org (ssh.w3.org [128.30.52.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3673C3A6B51 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rishida (homer.w3.org [128.30.52.30]) by homer.w3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C92C4EECA for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard Ishida" 
To: 
References:  <68723E6B2E0EDC4999504D17DDE8F94906E35E1F@S90X2HUB1.ad.insee.intra>
In-Reply-To: <68723E6B2E0EDC4999504D17DDE8F94906E35E1F@S90X2HUB1.ad.insee.intra>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:32:52 +0100
Message-ID: <043901ca1c33$b4a9fef0$1dfdfcd0$@org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcoWxKCACMOs+AIQToueNwvmwrToNgEUWiqgAEdJPvA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: [Ltru] IANA Language Subtag Registry Lookup tool updated
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:01:30 -0000

http://rishida.net/utils/subtags/

FYI, I have produced a new version of my registry lookup tool. In =
addition
to helping you find subtags and lookup the meaning of subtags, it now =
helps
check the well-formedness of a language tag.

The tool provides access to all currently defined subtags, and fully
integrates the new extlang subtags.

Parsing language tags. In addition to trying to make the user interface =
more
friendly, I also added the ability to parse hyphenated tags and discover
their structure and check for errors. I=92m not claiming with this =
release
that the new parser field tests all the corner cases, but it should =
provide
reports for most of the typical errors.

It reports errors for the following:

- subtags that are not in the registry (by type)
- incorrectly ordered subtags
- duplicate variant tags and multiple tags of other types
- overlong private use subtags

Try this example.
http://rishida.net/utils/subtags/index.php?searchtype=3D1&searchtext=3Dde=
-419-DE
-alt&submit=3DParse

It doesn=92t yet handle extensions, but then there aren=92t any valid =
ones to
handle yet anyway.

I hope that=92s useful to someone.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/


From alexey.melnikov@isode.com  Mon Aug 17 10:31:47 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27A53A6D8D for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.482
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n2PZQ6mMDw1R for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735E03A6B87 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.2.123] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250])  by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA  id ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:31:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4A8993E9.3040108@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:31:21 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: ltru@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040709080907010007090406"
Subject: [Ltru] [Fwd: Last Call for Language Tag experts as per draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23]
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:31:47 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040709080907010007090406
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

FYI.


--------------040709080907010007090406
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
 name="Last Call for Language Tag experts as per draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="Last Call for Language Tag experts as per draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23"

Return-Path: 
Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251])
	by canine (Isode M-Box/14.4v1) with LMTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:30:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by rufus.isode.com (smtp external)
          via TCP with ESMTP id  for ;
          Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:30:24 +0100
X-SPF-Result: PASS rufus.isode.com: domain of ietf.org designates 64.170.98.32 as permitted sender
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48ED28C11B;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: iesg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iesg@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0)
	id D37BE3A6C67; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: The IESG 
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call for Language Tag experts as per draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20090817173001.D37BE3A6C67@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: iesg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org
List-Id: 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: ,
	
Sender: iesg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iesg-bounces@ietf.org

The IESG has recently approved draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23.txt as an RFC. 
Section 3.2 of this document says:

The Language Subtag Reviewer is appointed by the IESG for an indefinite
term, subject to removal or replacement at the IESG's discretion. The IESG
will solicit nominees for the position (upon adoption of this document or
upon a vacancy) and then solicit feedback on the nominees' qualifications.
Qualified candidates should be familiar with BCP 47 and its requirements;
be willing to fairly, responsively, and judiciously administer the
registration process; and be suitably informed about the issues of
language identification so that the reviewer can assess the claims and
draw upon the contributions of language experts and subtag requesters.

Based upon instructions provided in the RFC-to-be, IESG would like to
solicit community feedback on qualifying candidates. Nominations should be
sent directly to IESG (iesg@ietf.org). The nomination period ends on
Monday, September 7, 2009.

--------------040709080907010007090406--

From cowan@ccil.org  Mon Aug 17 19:14:48 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E26728C238; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.517, BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZrpgP955CMa; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78F13A6824; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MdED6-0005bN-LE; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:14:04 -0400
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:14:04 -0400
To: iesg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20090818021404.GA18873@mercury.ccil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: John Cowan 
Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org, ltru@ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] Nomination of Michael Everson as Language Subtag Reviewer
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:14:48 -0000

I nominate Michael Everson, the incumbent, for the function of Language
Subtag Reviewer per the adoption of RFC 4646bis.  Michael has held this
post (and its predecessor post of Language Tag Reviewer) almost since
IETF language tagging began in 1995, and he has done a consistently
high-quality job.  Although Michael is certainly not perfect, most of
his bugs are well-known to the community and workarounds are in place
for them.  I see no reason at this time to appoint anyone else.

-- 
Even the best of friends cannot                 John Cowan
attend each others' funeral.                    cowan@ccil.org
        --Kehlog Albran, The Profit             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

From doug@ewellic.org  Mon Aug 17 22:00:46 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30AD3A6D8F for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.653
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.361,  BAYES_50=0.001, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B2S+o6CjTYfD for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout09-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.14]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F77D3A6A77 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15398 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2009 05:00:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by smtpout09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.14) with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2009 05:00:48 -0000
Message-ID: <6326DC09BA6A49619B12CC94C33008D1@DGBP7M81>
From: "Doug Ewell" 
To: "LTRU Working Group" , 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:00:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Nomination of Michael Everson as Language Subtag Reviewer
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:00:47 -0000

John Cowan  wrote:

> I nominate Michael Everson, the incumbent, for the function of 
> Language Subtag Reviewer per the adoption of RFC 4646bis.

Second.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ 


From felix.sasaki@googlemail.com  Tue Aug 18 01:52:43 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28263A69EC for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.119
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.557, BAYES_40=-0.185, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uc9tDvaMsbcy for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f188.google.com (mail-yw0-f188.google.com [209.85.211.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD333A67F1 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywh26 with SMTP id 26so4596522ywh.5 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=bQ8zhWMqQSXXoLV1QT0IYqXjEQaxW+qIxBVjSpTVE+o=; b=meuab1/ihYNY2N2LoqS3UilpYGn9kL5oN21PRPf88/Ki3Plknu8/3W2IJaX3Dzmymi 00zyC8OjFjvgbAOamhfKqfcUc1KrWMDUMZiq87cdJ3OFqvSbRJg7LJ1xdlubrSBtsEcE xnVE2Qh5BHiDncnVRaSg4q6aE8Or8jswp8TRU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=GEGbc8fSZKLn9mhsGNHa5W1IuRx/vhtGIV5ZM+wQCh5tZWZyY8V6gBG4IHnT4BObEA bpMy4il906w8+4b+HI10uFc4dBEWXE1KmggTqVVCuCUH0p0+hfmSFmOzC2Dic+J4j+sq OM38CImopVB6CQkPSUt7cw5lUig5uwm7Nh4eE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: felix.sasaki@googlemail.com
Received: by 10.101.176.35 with SMTP id d35mr4964173anp.170.1250585451856;  Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20090720102041.GA9899@nic.fr>
References:  <20090720102041.GA9899@nic.fr>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:50:51 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: c1f7c0a87f421deb
Message-ID: 
From: Felix Sasaki 
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5c1a79e84a40471669dd5
Cc: LTRU Working Group 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Translation of RFC 4646bis
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:52:43 -0000

--001636c5c1a79e84a40471669dd5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This took me a loong time to follow up ...

2009/7/20 Stephane Bortzmeyer 

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:47:57PM +0900,
>  Felix Sasaki  wrote
>  a message of 45 lines which said:
>
> > I am thinking about translating RFC 4646bis into German. A few
> > questions: Are there other parties thinking of translations into
> > other languages,
>
> For several years, a group (disclaimer: I'm not a member) is
> translating various RFCs in French:
>
> http://abcdrfc.free.fr/
>
> 4646 is already translated.
>
> I regard the translation of RFC as mostly a waste of time:
>
> * RFCs (standards track) are normative so translation is more risky
> * they are interesting only for a small number of persons, who
>  typically read english



True for many RFCs, but RFC 4646 and 4646bis contain a lot of explanatory
material about language tags. But argument is well taken.



>
>
> I suggest to translate instead the Web site
>  which is intended for a broader audience
> (and which exists only in english, which is ironic).
>


Good suggestion, I will try to gather some time for it. A translation of
http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ might be helpful
too.

Felix

--001636c5c1a79e84a40471669dd5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This took me=A0a loong time to follow up ...



2009/7/20 Stephane Bortzmeyer =
<bortzmeyer@nic.fr>

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:47:57=
PM +0900,
=A0Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de> wrote



=A0a message of 45 lines which said:

> I am thi=
nking about translating RFC 4646bis into German. A few
> questions: A=
re there other parties thinking of translations into
> other language=
s,


For several years, a group (disclaimer: I'm not a member) is<=
br>translating various RFCs in French:

http://abcdrfc.free.fr/

4646 is already=
 translated.


I regard the translation of RFC as mostly a waste of time:

* RFC=
s (standards track) are normative so translation is more risky
* they ar=
e interesting only for a small number of persons, who
=A0typically read =
english



=A0


=A0


True for many RFCs, but RFC 4646 and 4646bis contain a lot of explanat=
ory material about language tags. But argument is well taken.


=A0


=A0




I suggest t=
o translate instead the Web site
<http://www.langtag.net/> which is intended for a =
broader audience

(and which exists only in english, which is ironic).


=A0


=A0


Good suggestion, I will try to gather some time for it.=A0A translatio=
n of ht=
tp://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/=A0might be helpfu=
l too. 



=A0


Felix


--001636c5c1a79e84a40471669dd5--

From everson@evertype.com  Tue Aug 18 06:29:29 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B313A6A43; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZV9pB7v3f-4E; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lh13.dnsireland.com (lh13.dnsireland.com [78.137.164.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33FC3A6AB1; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [88.81.100.238] (helo=[192.168.1.105]) by lh13.dnsireland.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MdOjv-0003l5-Qr; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:28:40 +0100
Message-Id: <5318FA39-30EB-4A2D-AFCE-C38C25D9BC91@evertype.com>
From: Michael Everson 
To: iesg@ietf.org, ietflang IETF Languages Discussion , LTRU Working Group 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:28:44 +0100
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - lh13.dnsireland.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - evertype.com
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Subject: [Ltru] Nomination of Dough Ewell as Co-designated Expert
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:29:29 -0000

I nominate Doug Ewell, the incumbent, for the function of Co- 
designated Expert per the adoption of RFC 4646bis.  Doug has held this  
post for most of the period of RFC 4646 and has been invaluable in  
ensuring that certain non-linguistic technical matters involving the  
registry. Unlike me, Doug is very nearly perfect.... ;-)

I see no reason at this time to appoint anyone else.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/


From alexey.melnikov@isode.com  Tue Aug 18 11:46:02 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D213A6BAC for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.486
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f2s5dbFeB9VU for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8831C3A6A0F for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.2.109] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250])  by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA  id ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:46:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4A8AF6CD.8060300@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:45:33 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: ltru@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Ltru] RFC 3282 revision
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:46:02 -0000

Hi,
I've just noticed a recent discussion on the mailing list about revising 
RFC 3282.
I should point out that there is actually another WG trying to advance 
this document to Full Standard. This WG is called YAM 
.

As an AD I welcome energy surrounding revision of RFC 3282. But please 
coordinate with the YAM WG. Otherwise if I get 2 versions of the 
document (one from participants of this WG and one from YAM), I would 
have to pick one ;-).

Best Regards,
Alexey

P.S. There was a discussion in YAM meeting in Stockholm about how 
widespread is the use of Content-Language with multipart/alternative. 
Does anybody know which email/web clients support that?


From addison@amazon.com  Tue Aug 18 14:00:53 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C33CE28C3AD for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.532
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.933, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xbVVjJUapwpS for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com [72.21.196.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95A728C3AA for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,404,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="314334810"
Received: from smtp-in-1105.vdc.amazon.com ([10.140.9.24]) by smtp-border-fw-out-2101.iad2.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Aug 2009 21:00:57 +0000
Received: from ex-hub-4103.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-4103.sea5.amazon.com [10.248.163.24]) by smtp-in-1105.vdc.amazon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n7IL0mdK001307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:00:57 GMT
Received: from EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.30]) by ex-hub-4103.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.24]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:00:56 -0700
From: "Phillips, Addison" 
To: Alexey Melnikov , "ltru@ietf.org" 
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:00:55 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] RFC 3282 revision
Thread-Index: AcogNFFBuQH1o8S5Tf2l0ulzNdDpwwAEpjhA
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ACC1ABFE@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
References: <4A8AF6CD.8060300@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A8AF6CD.8060300@isode.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282 revision
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:00:53 -0000
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From harald@alvestrand.no  Wed Aug 19 03:57:21 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D062A3A6CAB for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyy18LyRDI2f for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4FB3A68B4 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F284239E1CA; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iBoVKMKNsuQE; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.sto.corp.google.com (212-181-117-146.customer.telia.com [212.181.117.146]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1712D39E1C4; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4A8BDA8B.40106@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:15 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand 
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Phillips, Addison" 
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: LTRU Working Group 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:57:21 -0000

Phillips, Addison wrote:
> The one bit of language tagging infrastructure that we have not revised since this whole body of work has started is RFC 3282, which defines Content-Language and Accept-Language. This morning I had cause to want to reference it, but a desire not to (since it depends on 3066 rather than the current-and-future BCP 47).
FWIW, the reference is:

  [TAGS]      Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
               Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066

At the time, it seemed obvious to me that references to a 
standards-track specification were intended to be "this one or any 
version that obsoletes it"; it was only later that I discovered that 
there could be multiple differences of opinion on this even in cases 
that seemed obvious to me.

If the document were to be revised, an obvious improvement would be to 
split the references into normative and informative, and remove the 
unused ones - none of the ISO references are in fact used; this was the 
result of a rather hasty split from 1766.

If YAM decides that it's ready to go to Standard status, I really don't 
see any need except for formalism and nitpicking to revise the document 
at all.

Over to YAM list....

                   Harald


>  I'm pretty sure that the whole machinery of a WG is not needed to revise this document--I'm thinking it would make a suitable individual submission. But I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone had thoughts about whether it were necessary, whether this list would make a suitable place to solicit comments, and whether anyone thought a WG charter were necessary for same (this last I studiously hope is not the case).
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>   


From prvs=1482897311=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk  Wed Aug 19 04:50:42 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214AD3A6BCB for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fA1C-pgDrYhG for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65573A69AA for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.6) with ESMTP id md50009847575.msg for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:51:35 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:51:35 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=1482897311=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ltru@ietf.org
Received: from Vickynew ([213.208.115.6]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:50:37 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" 
To: "'Doug Ewell'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" , 
References: <6326DC09BA6A49619B12CC94C33008D1@DGBP7M81>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:53:11 +0100
Message-ID: <061001ca20c3$a12aaac0$0300a8c0@Vickynew>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
thread-index: AcofwPzc+lHt2NQKTlS2ZOej9QxfPgBAp5wg
In-Reply-To: <6326DC09BA6A49619B12CC94C33008D1@DGBP7M81>
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:51:36 +0100
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Nomination of Michael Everson as Language Subtag Reviewer
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:54:40 -0000

Third! ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of =
Doug
Ewell
Sent: 18 August 2009 06:01
To: LTRU Working Group; ietf-languages@iana.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Nomination of Michael Everson as Language Subtag
Reviewer

John Cowan  wrote:

> I nominate Michael Everson, the incumbent, for the function of=20
> Language Subtag Reviewer per the adoption of RFC 4646bis.

Second.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  =88=20

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.=20
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: =
15/05/2009
06:16
=20

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.=20
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: =
15/05/2009
06:16
=20




From prvs=1482897311=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk  Wed Aug 19 04:50:20 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5513B3A69AA; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZmNoyazx6iE; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E1F3A6946; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.6) with ESMTP id md50009847569.msg; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:51:15 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:51:15 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=1482897311=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
Received: from Vickynew ([213.208.115.6]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:50:16 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" 
To: "'Michael Everson'" , , "'ietflang IETF Languages Discussion'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" 
References: <5318FA39-30EB-4A2D-AFCE-C38C25D9BC91@evertype.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:52:50 +0100
Message-ID: <060f01ca20c3$942cb570$0300a8c0@Vickynew>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
thread-index: AcogCIXLm0ie1hoTRvaAwOBw34k7twAuuJAQ
In-Reply-To: <5318FA39-30EB-4A2D-AFCE-C38C25D9BC91@evertype.com>
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:51:16 +0100
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Nomination of Doug Ewell as Co-designated Expert
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:54:40 -0000

Michael wrote:

>> I nominate Doug Ewell, the incumbent, for the function of Co- 
designated Expert per the adoption of RFC 4646bis.  Doug has held this  
post for most of the period of RFC 4646 and has been invaluable in  
ensuring that certain non-linguistic technical matters involving the  
registry. Unlike me, Doug is very nearly perfect.... ;-)

>> I see no reason at this time to appoint anyone else.

I Second!

Debbie


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: 18 August 2009 14:29
To: iesg@ietf.org; ietflang IETF Languages Discussion; LTRU Working Group
Subject: Nomination of Dough Ewell as Co-designated Expert

I nominate Doug Ewell, the incumbent, for the function of Co- 
designated Expert per the adoption of RFC 4646bis.  Doug has held this  
post for most of the period of RFC 4646 and has been invaluable in  
ensuring that certain non-linguistic technical matters involving the  
registry. Unlike me, Doug is very nearly perfect.... ;-)

I see no reason at this time to appoint anyone else.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages



Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 15/05/2009
06:16
 

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 15/05/2009
06:16
 




From cowan@ccil.org  Wed Aug 19 09:07:18 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04ECA3A6834 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.49
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.890,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sIfuwVkGSKNV for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A203A677D for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Mdnh3-00032a-CK; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:07:21 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:07:21 -0400
To: Harald Alvestrand 
Message-ID: <20090819160721.GB23581@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <4A8BDA8B.40106@alvestrand.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A8BDA8B.40106@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: John Cowan 
Cc: LTRU Working Group 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:07:18 -0000

Harald Alvestrand scripsit:

> At the time, it seemed obvious to me that references to a 
> standards-track specification were intended to be "this one or any 
> version that obsoletes it"; it was only later that I discovered that 
> there could be multiple differences of opinion on this even in cases 
> that seemed obvious to me.

Well, yes, except that BCP 47 isn't standards-track.

> If YAM decides that it's ready to go to Standard status, I really don't 
> see any need except for formalism and nitpicking to revise the document 
> at all.

IMHO, the syntax of Content-Language should be tightened to require proper
4646/4646bis language tag syntax, and the laxer syntaxes should be moved to
obs-* productions.


-- 
John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Original line from The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold:
"Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one."
English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: "Only on Barrayar you risk to
lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon."

From ishida@w3.org  Fri Aug 21 09:47:41 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4076C3A6DD4 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.091
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.094, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N24OAoYfZFvr for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homer.w3.org (ssh.w3.org [128.30.52.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F003A6974 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rishida (homer.w3.org [128.30.52.30]) by homer.w3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982FD4EF35; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:47:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard Ishida" 
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" , "'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" 
References: 	<20090720102041.GA9899@nic.fr> 
In-Reply-To: 
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:47:39 +0100
Message-ID: <00f501ca227f$18db80f0$4a9282d0$@org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F6_01CA2287.7A9FE8F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acof4VxKBcCuQ/yiR6yvJY+YdTLzogCnYFVQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Translation of RFC 4646bis
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:47:41 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00F6_01CA2287.7A9FE8F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Don't translate http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ yet.
I'm just about to change it to reflect RFC 5646.

 

RI

 

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/





 

From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Felix Sasaki
Sent: 18 August 2009 09:51
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Translation of RFC 4646bis

 

This took me a loong time to follow up ...

2009/7/20 Stephane Bortzmeyer 

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:47:57PM +0900,
 Felix Sasaki  wrote

 a message of 45 lines which said:

> I am thinking about translating RFC 4646bis into German. A few
> questions: Are there other parties thinking of translations into
> other languages,

For several years, a group (disclaimer: I'm not a member) is
translating various RFCs in French:

http://abcdrfc.free.fr/

4646 is already translated.

I regard the translation of RFC as mostly a waste of time:

* RFCs (standards track) are normative so translation is more risky
* they are interesting only for a small number of persons, who
 typically read english

 

 

True for many RFCs, but RFC 4646 and 4646bis contain a lot of explanatory
material about language tags. But argument is well taken.

 

 



I suggest to translate instead the Web site
 which is intended for a broader audience
(and which exists only in english, which is ironic).

 

 

Good suggestion, I will try to gather some time for it. A translation of
http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ might be helpful
too. 

 

Felix


------=_NextPart_000_00F6_01CA2287.7A9FE8F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
















Don't translate http://w=
ww.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/
yet.=A0 I'm just about to change it to reflect RFC 5646.



 



RI



 



=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Richard Ishida

Internationalization Lead

W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)



http://www.w3.org/International=
/

http://rishida.net/










 












From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki

Sent: 18 August 2009 09:51

To: Stephane Bortzmeyer

Cc: LTRU Working Group

Subject: Re: [Ltru] Translation of RFC =
4646bis









 



This took me a =
loong time
to follow up ...






2009/7/20 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>


On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:47:57PM +0900,

 Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de=
>
wrote






 a message of =
45 lines
which said:



> I am thinking about translating RFC 4646bis into German. A few

> questions: Are there other parties thinking of translations =
into

> other languages,






For several years, a group (disclaimer: I'm not a =
member) is

translating various RFCs in French:



http://abcdrfc.free.fr/



4646 is already translated.



I regard the translation of RFC as mostly a waste of time:



* RFCs (standards track) are normative so translation is more risky

* they are interesting only for a small number of persons, who

 typically read english






 









 









True for many RFCs, but RFC 4646 and 4646bis =
contain a lot
of explanatory material about language tags. But argument is well =
taken.









 









 













I suggest to translate instead the Web site

<http://www.langtag.net/>
which is intended for a broader audience

(and which exists only in english, which is ironic).












 









 









Good suggestion, I will try to gather some time for
it. A translation of http://w=
ww.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ might
be helpful too. 









 









Felix















------=_NextPart_000_00F6_01CA2287.7A9FE8F0--


From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp  Fri Aug 21 22:38:08 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707243A6903 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.315
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.315 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.495,  BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t5zcN5qVO01K for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.251.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F723A67DF for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.158]) by scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id n7M5c0f7028646 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:38:00 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 6c06_f41dd22e_8edd_11de_9292_001d096c566a; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:38:00 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:58787) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id  for  from ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:34:50 +0900
Message-ID: <4A8F8407.5090302@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:37:11 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= 
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090108 Eudora/3.0b1pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Doug Ewell 
References:  <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81>
In-Reply-To: <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: LTRU Working Group 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:38:08 -0000

[Co-chair hat off; mostly written a couple weeks ago]

I'm mostly offline now, so I haven't actually looked at the text, but 
from Doug's list below, it seem to me that an update may be desirable, 
but not really needed. That means that if somebody (like the YAM WG) 
really has the cycles to do, why not, but otherwise, there might be more 
pressing work around. Please note that RFC 4646 obsoletes (or was it 
updates) RFC 3066, so for all intents and purposes, the references in 
RFC 3282 to RFC 3066 are actually to RFC 4646, or soon an even newer one.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/08/06 10:37, Doug Ewell wrote:
> "Phillips, Addison"  wrote:
>
>> Ever the optimist, I would hope that such a revision wouldn't require
>> the level of effort needed for the BCP 47 work.
>
> You never know. In September 2005 on ietf-languages, Peter Constable
> mentioned the upcoming 4646bis effort and said:
>
> "For my part, I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much*
> shorter time that 3066bis has taken."
>
> As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646.
>
> But a quick look at RFC 3282--which is possible, since it's only 8 pages
> long including boilerplate and page breaks--suggests that the following
> changes might be all that is necessary:
>
> * Update reference to ABNF and remove EBNF in sections 2 and 3.
>
> * Update examples in Section 2.1 using i-languages to use ISO 639-based,
> grandfathered, hypothetical 5-to-8-character registered, or private-
> use tags instead.
>
> * Consider a simple update to Section 4, possibly just a pointer to the
> security section of 4646bis.
>
> * As suggested by CE Whitehead, update reference to Language "Tag"
> Reviewer (which was correct at the time 3282 was written) to refer to
> the Language "Subtag" Reviewer instead. (On the other hand, it's just
> an acknowledgement.)
>
> * Split references into normative and informative.
>
> * Update [TAGS] reference to 3066 to point to 4646bis instead.
>
> * Consider removing references to ISO standards, as the syntax and
> content of tags are fully defined by 4646bis and the Registry.
>
> This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an individual to
> prepare and submit an update without experiencing the surreal delays of
> the LTRU process, and without being subjected to undue slings and arrows.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> http://www.ewellic.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

From felix.sasaki@googlemail.com  Sat Aug 22 00:07:40 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225213A6921 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.14
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.836,  BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LNBd3mdKarNj for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.241]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D6D3A68F5 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c5so445362anc.4 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=XjrDx33XGup8JIl9GTxW3VrBg5ChmZsLenYQM5utCOo=; b=c4X/M1XSFYgW8Xhbhx6vLJ1fUSV0v7CR/N5QWo9iex8i/5jZKWaxe4vOdp+Sw/CDHu 2b4z08Nt45hmP/f5Otz0mYcHJAbMU4LiUzFZ/o2wdSg+of5khvmly1MzL2guQgbEeiVR iAD/jXyXRcXARGSnYX5O3JFErF1B25Xc+Ly1I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=M5EnTSeMOoiLLDPPeE4u6avI11WZZN51kbUiRzX5cnwbXHjsfxj2rp9zPLoJIgSR5f xBWuXBaG27GkrNKHSVJUKCX2ZhqEZbMAu5mos+etSbVhNkb23PG0aFsfCkJTUNHKqzM2 dcF5/Hxg4XYJQDFUXWprEUB+1BYY10ZzTMCk8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: felix.sasaki@googlemail.com
Received: by 10.100.130.11 with SMTP id c11mr2139183and.97.1250924857371; Sat,  22 Aug 2009 00:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00f501ca227f$18db80f0$4a9282d0$@org>
References:  <20090720102041.GA9899@nic.fr>  <00f501ca227f$18db80f0$4a9282d0$@org>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:07:37 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cfff020e48fcc369
Message-ID: 
From: Felix Sasaki 
To: Richard Ishida 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64079ccc3aea10471b5a3bb
Cc: LTRU Working Group 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Translation of RFC 4646bis
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:07:40 -0000

--0016e64079ccc3aea10471b5a3bb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks for the warning, I won't.

Felix

2009/8/21 Richard Ishida 

>  Don't translate http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/yet.  I'm just about to change it to reflect RFC 5646.
>
>
>
> RI
>
>
>
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://rishida.net/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Felix Sasaki
> *Sent:* 18 August 2009 09:51
> *To:* Stephane Bortzmeyer
> *Cc:* LTRU Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Ltru] Translation of RFC 4646bis
>
>
>
> This took me a loong time to follow up ...
>
> 2009/7/20 Stephane Bortzmeyer 
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:47:57PM +0900,
>  Felix Sasaki  wrote
>
>  a message of 45 lines which said:
>
> > I am thinking about translating RFC 4646bis into German. A few
> > questions: Are there other parties thinking of translations into
> > other languages,
>
> For several years, a group (disclaimer: I'm not a member) is
> translating various RFCs in French:
>
> http://abcdrfc.free.fr/
>
> 4646 is already translated.
>
> I regard the translation of RFC as mostly a waste of time:
>
> * RFCs (standards track) are normative so translation is more risky
> * they are interesting only for a small number of persons, who
>  typically read english
>
>
>
>
>
> True for many RFCs, but RFC 4646 and 4646bis contain a lot of explanatory
> material about language tags. But argument is well taken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I suggest to translate instead the Web site
>  which is intended for a broader audience
> (and which exists only in english, which is ironic).
>
>
>
>
>
> Good suggestion, I will try to gather some time for it. A translation of
> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ might be helpful
> too.
>
>
>
> Felix
>

--0016e64079ccc3aea10471b5a3bb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Thanks for the warning, I won't. 


=A0


Felix



2009/8/21 Richard Ishida <<=
a href=3D"mailto:ishida@w3.org">ishida@w3.org>








Don't translate http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ y=
et.=A0 I'm just about to change it to reflect RFC 5646.



=A0


RI


=A0


=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead<=
br>W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)=20



http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/=20





<=
/span>


=A0








From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] O=
n Behalf Of Felix Sasaki

Sent: 18 August 2009 09:51
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer
C=
c: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Translation of RFC =
4646bis








=A0


This took me=A0a loong time to follow up .=
..




2009/7/20 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>


On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:47:57PM +0900,
=A0Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-po=
tsdam.de> wrote




=A0a message of 45 lines which said:
> I am thinking about translating RFC 4646bis into German. A few
&g=
t; questions: Are there other parties thinking of translations into
>=
 other languages,




For several years, a group (disclaimer: I'm not a member) is
tran=
slating various RFCs in French:

http://abcdrfc.free.fr/

4646 is already transl=
ated.


I regard the translation of RFC as mostly a waste of time:

* RFC=
s (standards track) are normative so translation is more risky
* they ar=
e interesting only for a small number of persons, who
=A0typically read =
english





=A0




=A0




True for many RFCs, but RFC 4646 and 4646bis contain a lot of explanator=
y material about language tags. But argument is well taken.




=A0




=A0







I suggest to translate instead the Web site
<http://www.langtag.net/> wh=
ich is intended for a broader audience
(and which exists only in english=
, which is ironic).






=A0




=A0




Good suggestion, I will try to gather some time for it.=A0A translation =
of http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/=
=A0might be helpful too. 






=A0




Felix



--0016e64079ccc3aea10471b5a3bb--

From bortzmeyer@nic.fr  Tue Aug 25 07:07:21 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59CA28C2FF for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.119
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.359, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OZEgchPBfa7W for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90E03A6EDA for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 354CE1C01CA; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:02:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9441B1C0196; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:02:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88424A1D97F; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:02:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:02:24 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer 
To: ltru@ietf.org, ietf-languages@iana.org
Message-ID: <20090825140224.GA19226@nic.fr>
References: <20090730065726.GA31337@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090730065726.GA31337@nic.fr>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.2
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [Ltru] New 4646bis IANA registry published
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:07:22 -0000

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:57:26AM +0200,
 Stephane Bortzmeyer  wrote 
 a message of 28 lines which said:

> The registry is now in UTF-8, which crashes the scripts behind
> . Sorry, I hope I'll have the time to
> install a new version before going to holidays.

Done. Sorry for the delay, but August is a sacred month in France :-)

The files in  are now
following the new and larger registry.

From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com  Tue Aug 25 19:15:17 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D32928C2F9; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2v-0TWujg--z; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB3528C2EC; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=kocfBLH7AK9dJBHVRjvN0ke9s7WnhkaydBojJGgGXNdb4dSma/ggWjo7+grIBBQ4; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.23.160.233] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Mg82j-0001Ln-Oq; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:15:22 -0400
Message-ID: <00a701ca25f3$79deb6c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" 
To: , "Disman" , "LTRU Working Group" 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:18:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8881afdcb5313ff34f944b50984107aa2caf0f03f3501b633bb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.23.160.233
Subject: [Ltru] Fw: 76th IETF - WG/BOF Scheduling
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:15:17 -0000

Hi -

Forwarded for your information.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "IETF Agenda" 
> To: "Working Group Chairs" 
> Cc: ; 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:57 PM
> Subject: 76th IETF - WG/BOF Scheduling 
>
> Subject: 76th IETF - Working Group/BOF Scheduling
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 76th IETF  Hiroshima, Japan
> Meeting Dates: November 8-13, 2009
> Host: WIDE
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF meetings start Monday morning and run through Friday mid-afternoon
> (15:15).
> 
> We are accepting scheduling requests for all Working Groups and BOFs
> starting today.  The milestones and deadlines for scheduling-related
> activities are as follows:
> 
> NOTE: cutoff dates are subject to change.
> 
> - 2009-09-07 (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area
> Directors at 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT). To request a BOF, please see
> instructions on Requesting a BOF.
> - 2009-09-14 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group
> meetings at 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT). To request a Working Group session,
> use the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. ** Please note - if you send in
> your request after this date your Working Group will not be scheduled
> until after the Preliminary agenda has been published (Friday, - October
> 2, 2009) and will NOT receive priority scheduling. **
> - 2009-09-14 (Monday): Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at
> 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT).
> - 2009-10-02 (Friday): Preliminary agenda published for comment.
> - 2009-10-09 (Friday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working
> Group and BOF meetings 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT).
> - 2009-10-16 (Monday): Final agenda to be published.
> - 2009-10-28 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PDT
> (24:00 UTC/GMT), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool.
> - 2009-11-02 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PST
> (01:00 Tuesday, November 3 UTC/GMT), upload using IETF Meeting Materials
> Management Tool.
> 
> Submitting Requests for Working Group and BOF Sessions
> 
> Please submit requests to schedule your Working Group sessions using the
> "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting all
> of the information that the Secretariat requires to schedule your
> sessions.
> 
> The URL for the tool is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi
> 
> Instructions for using the tool are available at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/instructions/session_request_tool_instruction.html
> 
> Please send requests to schedule your BOF sessions to agenda@ietf.org. 
> Please include the acronym of your BOF in the subject line of the message,
> and include all of the information specified in item (4) of "Requesting
> Meeting Sessions at IETF Meetings" in the body.  (This document is
> included below.)
> 
> Submitting Session Agendas
> 
> For the convenience of meeting attendees, we ask that you submit the
> agendas for your Working Group sessions as early as possible.  Draft
> Working Group agendas are due Wednesday, October 28 by 17:00 PDT (24:00
> UTC/GMT).  Revised Working Group agendas are due no later than Monday,
> November 2 at 17:00 PDT (01:00 Tuesday, November 3 UTC/GMT).  The proposed
> agenda for a BOF session should be submitted along with your request for a
> session.  Please be sure to copy your Area Director on that message.
> 
> Please submit the agendas for your Working Group sessions using the "IETF
> Meeting Materials Management Tool," a Web-based tool for making your
> meeting agenda, minutes, and presentation slides available to the
> community before, during, and after an IETF meeting.  If you are a BOF
> chair, then you may use the tool to submit a revised agenda as well as
> other materials for your BOF once the BOF has been approved.
> 
> The URL for the tool is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi
> 
> Additional information about this tool is available at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/instructions/meeting_materials_tool.html
> 
> Agendas submitted via the tool will be available to the public on the
> "IETF Meeting Materials" Web page as soon as they are submitted.
> 
> The URL for the "IETF 76 Meeting Materials" Web page is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=76
> 
> If you are a Working Group chair, then you already have accounts on the
> "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool" and the "IETF Meeting Materials
> Management Tool."  The same User ID and password will work for both tools.
>   If you are a BOF chair who is not also a Working Group chair, then you
> will be given an account on the "IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool"
> when your BOF has been approved.  If you require assistance in using
> either tool, or wish to report a bug, then please send a message to:
> ietf-action@ietf.org.
> ===============================================================
> For your convenience, comprehensive information on requesting meeting
> sessions at IETF 76 is presented below:
> 
> 1. Requests to schedule Working Group sessions should be submitted using
> the "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting
> all of the information required by the Secretariat to schedule your
> sessions.  The URL for the tool is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi
> 
> Instructions for using the tool are available at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/instructions/session_request_tool_instruction.html
> 
> If you require an account on this tool, or assistance in using it, then
> please send a message to ietf-action@ietf.org.  If you are unable to use
> the tool, then you may send your request via e-mail to agenda@ietf.org,
> with a copy to the appropriate Area Director(s).
> 
> Requests to schedule BOF sessions must be sent to agenda@ietf.org with a
> copy to the appropriate Area Director(s).
> 
> When submitting a Working Group or BOF session request by e-mail, please
> include the Working Group or BOF acronym in the Subject line.
> 
> 2. BOFs will NOT be scheduled unless the Area Director(s) approved
> request is accompanied by a BOF'S FULL NAME AND ACRONYM, AREA, CHAIR(S)
> NAME(S) (given together with e-mail address(es)), AN AGENDA AND FULL
> DESCRIPTION, and the information requested in (4) below. (Please read the
> BOF Procedure at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt before
> requesting a session for a BOF.)
> 
> 3. A Working Group may request either one or two sessions.  If your
> Working Group requires more than two sessions, then your request must be
> approved by an Area Director.  Additional sessions will be assigned, based
> on availability, after Friday, October 9 at 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT), the
> cut-off date for requests to reschedule a session.
> 
> 4. You MUST provide the following information before a Working Group or
> BOF session will be scheduled:
> 
>     a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets: 
> 
>     b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears:
> 
>     c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible:
> 
>     d. Expected Attendance (figures from the 75th IETF meeting are
> included at the end of this message):
> 
>     e. Special requests:
> 
>     f. Number of sessions:
> 
>     g. Length of session: 
>        - 1 hour 
>        - 1 1/2 hours
>        - 2 hours 
>        - 2 1/2 hours
> 
> For more information on scheduling Working Group and BOF sessions, please
> refer to RFC 2418 (BCP 25), "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures"
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt).
> ===============================================================
> For your convenience please find here a list of the IETF Area Directors
> with their e-mail addresses:
> 
> IETF Chair 
> Russ Housley 
> 
> Applications Area (app) 
> Lisa Dusseault 
> Alexey Melnikov 
> 
> Internet Area (int) 
> Jari Arkko 
> Ralph Droms 
> 
> Operations & Management Area (ops) 
> Ronald Bonica 
> Dan Romascanu 
> 
> Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area (rai)
> Cullen Jennings 
> Robert Sparks 
> 
> Routing Area (rtg) 
> Ross Callon 
> Adrian Farrel 
> 
> Security Area (sec) 
> Pasi Eronen 
> Tim Polk 
> 
> Transport Area (tsv) 
> Lars Eggert 
> Magnus Westerlund 
> ===========================================================
> 75th IETF Meeting Attendance Number
> 
> 6lowpan  50
> 6man  80
> alto  86
> ancp  27
> apparea (AG)  72
> autoconf  48
> avt  73
> avt (2nd session)  34
> behave  141
> behave (2nd session)  126
> bliss  54
> bmwg  24
> capwap  7
> ccamp  89
> codec-BOF  152
> dhc  42
> dime  18
> dispatch  83
> dispatch (2nd session)  24
> dkim  25
> dnsext  113
> dnsop  171
> drinks  51
> dtnrg  50
> eai  35
> ecrit  61
> emu  32
> fecframe  16
> forces  25
> geopriv  62
> grow  88
> hip  66
> hiprg  33
> hokey  38
> hokey (2nd session)  27
> httpbis  25
> iccrg  54
> idnabis  81
> idr  92
> intarea  142
> ipdvb  5
> ipfix  28
> ippm  26
> ipsecme  43
> isis  25
> isms  21
> keyprov  25
> kitten  17
> krb-wg  13
> l2vpn  100
> l3vpn  101
> ledbat  58
> lisp  148
> manet  43
> mboned  39
> mediactrl  22
> mext  61
> mif  84
> mip4  29
> mmusic  58
> morg  14
> mpls  154
> mpls (2nd session)  133
> mptcp-BOF  126
> multimob-BOF  42
> nea  35
> netconf  27
> netext  56
> netext2-BOF  69
> netmod  32
> netmod (2nd session)  20
> nfsv4  15
> ogpx-BOF  54
> opsarea  72
> opsawg  33
> ospf  38
> p2prg  88
> p2psip  81
> pce  52
> pcn  31
> pim  41
> pkix  42
> pwe3  136
> radext  22
> rmt  11
> roll  80
> rrg  94
> rtgarea  131
> rtgwg  42
> saag  80
> sasl  22
> savi  NO SHEETS
> sidr  95
> sieve  11
> simple  69
> sipcore  72
> softwire  103
> speermint  NO SHEETS
> syslog  24
> tcpm  44
> tictoc  47
> tls  36
> tsvarea  98
> tsvwg  55
> v6ops  155
> vcarddav  19
> xcon  22
> xmpp  44
> yam  19
> 


From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com  Mon Aug 31 10:48:36 2009
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800133A6E39 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.324
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.675,  BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eWEr6eyz4keY for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1242628C399 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=MWtg+dpIOyHGL1OpyPUEh+jzdByOqPgV5dp3UqL0Dz8DELw6QoS3YPyUtSbgHzzs; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.41.49.166] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MiAzm-0007jB-14 for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:48:46 -0400
Message-ID: <003001ca2a63$bea69ec0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" 
To: "LTRU Working Group" 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:52:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8881afdcb5313ff34f9913ab8ced2ef8bc2539337a6ae1cc9cc350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.41.49.166
Subject: [Ltru] Fw: 76th IETF - Working Group/BOF Scheduling
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:48:36 -0000

Hi -

As co-chair...

Forwarded for your information.  Currently there are no plans for
the ltru WG to meet in Hiroshima.  Based on what we've seen so
far of the discussion of potential new work, I believe co-chair
Martin and I will recommend that the WG be shut down after our
two current work items are published.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "IETF Agenda" 
> To: "Working Group Chairs" 
> Cc: ; 
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 7:05 AM
> Subject: 76th IETF - Working Group/BOF Scheduling 
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 76th IETF  Hiroshima, Japan
> Meeting Dates: November 8-13, 2009
> Host: WIDE
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF meetings start Monday morning and run through Friday mid-afternoon
> (15:15).
> 
> We are accepting scheduling requests for all Working Groups and BOFs. 
> The milestones and deadlines for scheduling-related activities are as
> follows:
> 
> NOTE: cutoff dates are subject to change.
> 
> 2009-09-07 (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area
> Directors at 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT). To request a BOF, please see
> instructions on Requesting a BOF
> http://www.ietf.org/wg/bof-procedures.html.
> 2009-09-14 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group
> meetings at 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT). To request a Working Group session,
> use the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi. 
> **Please note - if you send in your request after this date your Working
> Group will not be scheduled until after the Preliminary agenda has been
> published (Friday, October 2, 2009) and will NOT receive priority
> scheduling.**
> 2009-09-14 (Monday): Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at
> 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT).
> 2009-10-02 (Friday): Preliminary agenda published for comment.
> 2009-10-09 (Friday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working Group
> and BOF meetings 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT).
> 2009-10-16 (Monday): Final agenda to be published.
> 2009-10-28 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PDT
> (24:00 UTC/GMT), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi.
> 2009-11-02 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PST (01:00
> Tuesday, November 3 UTC/GMT), upload using IETF Meeting Materials
> Management Tool.
> 
> Submitting Requests for Working Group and BOF Sessions
> 
> Please submit requests to schedule your Working Group sessions using the
> "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting all
> of the information that the Secretariat requires to schedule your
> sessions.
> 
> The URL for the tool is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi
> 
> Instructions for using the tool are available at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/instructions/session_request_tool_instruction.html
> 
> Please send requests to schedule your BOF sessions to agenda@ietf.org. 
> Please include the acronym of your BOF in the subject line of the message,
> and include all of the information specified in item (4) of "Requesting
> Meeting Sessions at IETF Meetings" in the body.  (This document is
> included below.)
> 
> Submitting Session Agendas
> 
> For the convenience of meeting attendees, we ask that you submit the
> agendas for your Working Group sessions as early as possible.  Draft
> Working Group agendas are due Wednesday, October 28 by 17:00 PDT (24:00
> UTC/GMT).  Revised Working Group agendas are due no later than Monday,
> November 2 at 17:00 PDT (01:00 Tuesday, November 3 UTC/GMT).  The proposed
> agenda for a BOF session should be submitted along with your request for a
> session.  Please be sure to copy your Area Director on that message.
> 
> Please submit the agendas for your Working Group sessions using the "IETF
> Meeting Materials Management Tool," a Web-based tool for making your
> meeting agenda, minutes, and presentation slides available to the
> community before, during, and after an IETF meeting.  If you are a BOF
> chair, then you may use the tool to submit a revised agenda as well as
> other materials for your BOF once the BOF has been approved.
> 
> The URL for the tool is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi
> 
> Additional information about this tool is available at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/instructions/meeting_materials_tool.html
> 
> Agendas submitted via the tool will be available to the public on the
> "IETF Meeting Materials" Web page as soon as they are submitted.
> 
> The URL for the "IETF 76 Meeting Materials" Web page is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=76
> 
> If you are a Working Group chair, then you already have accounts on the
> "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool" and the "IETF Meeting Materials
> Management Tool."  The same User ID and password will work for both tools.
>   If you are a BOF chair who is not also a Working Group chair, then you
> will be given an account on the "IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool"
> when your BOF has been approved.  If you require assistance in using
> either tool, or wish to report a bug, then please send a message to:
> ietf-action@ietf.org.
> ===============================================================
> For your convenience, comprehensive information on requesting meeting
> sessions at IETF 76 is presented below:
> 
> 1. Requests to schedule Working Group sessions should be submitted using
> the "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting
> all of the information required by the Secretariat to schedule your
> sessions.  The URL for the tool is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi
> 
> Instructions for using the tool are available at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/instructions/session_request_tool_instruction.html
> 
> If you require an account on this tool, or assistance in using it, then
> please send a message to ietf-action@ietf.org.  If you are unable to use
> the tool, then you may send your request via e-mail to agenda@ietf.org,
> with a copy to the appropriate Area Director(s).
> 
> Requests to schedule BOF sessions must be sent to agenda@ietf.org with a
> copy to the appropriate Area Director(s).
> 
> When submitting a Working Group or BOF session request by e-mail, please
> include the Working Group or BOF acronym in the Subject line.
> 
> 2. BOFs will NOT be scheduled unless the Area Director(s) approved
> request is accompanied by a BOF'S FULL NAME AND ACRONYM, AREA, CHAIR(S)
> NAME(S) (given together with e-mail address(es)), AN AGENDA AND FULL
> DESCRIPTION, and the information requested in (4) below. (Please read the
> BOF Procedure at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt before
> requesting a session for a BOF.)
> 
> 3. A Working Group may request either one or two sessions.  If your
> Working Group requires more than two sessions, then your request must be
> approved by an Area Director.  Additional sessions will be assigned, based
> on availability, after Friday, October 9 at 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT), the
> cut-off date for requests to reschedule a session.
> 
> 4. You MUST provide the following information before a Working Group or
> BOF session will be scheduled:
> 
>     a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets: 
> 
>     b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears:
> 
>     c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible:
> 
>     d. Expected Attendance (figures from the 75th IETF meeting are
> included at the end of this message):
> 
>     e. Special requests:
> 
>     f. Number of sessions:
> 
>     g. Length of session: 
>        - 1 hour 
>        - 1 1/2 hours
>        - 2 hours 
>        - 2 1/2 hours
> 
> For more information on scheduling Working Group and BOF sessions, please
> refer to RFC 2418 (BCP 25), "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures"
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt).
> ===============================================================
> For your convenience please find here a list of the IETF Area Directors
> with their e-mail addresses:
> 
> IETF Chair 
> Russ Housley 
> 
> Applications Area (app) 
> Lisa Dusseault 
> Alexey Melnikov 
> 
> Internet Area (int) 
> Jari Arkko 
> Ralph Droms 
> 
> Operations & Management Area (ops) 
> Ronald Bonica 
> Dan Romascanu 
> 
> Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area (rai)
> Cullen Jennings 
> Robert Sparks 
> 
> Routing Area (rtg) 
> Ross Callon 
> Adrian Farrel 
> 
> Security Area (sec) 
> Pasi Eronen 
> Tim Polk 
> 
> Transport Area (tsv) 
> Lars Eggert 
> Magnus Westerlund 
> ===========================================================
> 75th IETF Meeting Attendance Number
> 
> 6lowpan  50
> 6man  80
> alto  86
> ancp  27
> apparea  72
> autoconf  48
> avt  73
> avt (2nd session)  34
> behave  141
> behave (2nd session)  126
> bliss  54
> bmwg  24
> capwap  7
> ccamp  89
> codec  152
> dhc  42
> dime  18
> dispatch  83
> dispatch (2nd session)  24
> dkim  25
> dnsext  113
> dnsop  171
> drinks  51
> dtnrg  50
> eai  35
> ecrit  61
> emu  32
> fecframe  16
> forces  25
> geopriv  62
> grow  88
> hip  66
> hiprg  33
> hokey  38
> hokey (2nd session)  27
> httpbis  25
> iccrg  54
> idnabis  81
> idr  92
> intarea  142
> ipdvb  5
> ipfix  28
> ippm  26
> ipsecme  43
> isis  25
> isms  21
> keyprov  25
> kitten  17
> krb-wg  13
> l2vpn  100
> l3vpn  101
> ledbat  58
> lisp  148
> manet  43
> mboned  39
> mediactrl  22
> mext  61
> mif  84
> mip4  29
> mmusic  58
> morg  14
> mpls  154
> mpls (2nd session)  133
> mptcp  126
> multimob  42
> nea  35
> netconf  27
> netext  56
> netext2  69
> netmod  32
> netmod (2nd session)  20
> nfsv4  15
> ogpx  54
> opsarea  72
> opsawg  33
> ospf  38
> p2prg  88
> p2psip  81
> pce  52
> pcn  31
> pim  41
> pkix  42
> pwe3  136
> radext  22
> rmt  11
> roll  80
> rrg  94
> rtgarea  131
> rtgwg  42
> saag  80
> sasl  22
> savi  NO SHEETS
> sidr  95
> sieve  11
> simple  69
> sipcore  72
> softwire  103
> speermint  NO SHEETS
> syslog  24
> tcpm  44
> tictoc  47
> tls  36
> tsvarea  98
> tsvwg  55
> v6ops  155
> vcarddav  19
> xcon  22
> xmpp  44
> yam  19