r&d afrac wrote: > RFC 2860 bis is under general discussion with Brian Carpenter > discussing it and a Draft from John Klensin. Yes, I read the IETF general list, and I've John's draft in my "collection" <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/> It's not about finding a new hoster for the IANA, it's about the definition of "IESG approval". Perfectly irrelevant for LTRU, it was always clear that there's no way to bypass the "language tag review" step in our procedure. You can't send a registration request directly to the IESG - that's the problem they had with this obscure IPv6 hop-by-hop option, if I understood this correctly. > The real issue is now to know if we are going to have at IANA > level a contention similar to the "alt-roots" with USA, > China, Europe, etc. playing alt-IANA. For the moment IANA is what the IETF says it is. And for the moment ns1.de.eu.orsn.net mirrors ICANN's servers, or at least that's what I think it does. > no need at this stage to add confusion with 7500 languages. I like the idea. But it will be 3066ter, Peter can't register them manually one after the other. 3066ter will simply offer a bulk registry update, add ISO 639-3 to the registry maybe after filtering any dupes. No confusion. > RFC 2860 de facto does not exist anymore. Fine, then let's delete it from the references. The last time I proposed this you didn't like it. Only an "informative" MoU, good riddance from our "normative" references. > Our job is to see how we can best support people. Reinventing ICANN isn't covered by our WG Charter, we're here to define a registry format, not the hoster of this registry. And as far as I'm concerned that job is finished. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.