RE: [Ltru] Referencing the Scheme within the Tag

["Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>]

JFC wrote:

> This means that we will have several
> coexisting schemes as both the narrowing and the needs will increase.

All the more reason to reference the scheme within the tag.

> > The only fear I have is that ISO 11179 is complex.

This is my view also.  I have further investigations to do on this and would
not at this stage (or possibly even at any stage) be suggesting to this WG
to adopt ISO 11179. Initial discussions with industry suggest there MAY be a
split view on its use; I don't know.  I understand that this WG has already
discussed 11179 and made the decision not to apply the standard at this
stage.  For my purposes so far, within the draft for 639-6 (and please
remember this is not yet ratified by ISO), it works quite nicely.

> Designing it in the context of this WG could be possible (it was my
> request
> to ADs when I called for a WG-TAGS) but would call for far more people to
> assemble.

I understand that this is an anonymous list; however, it would be
interesting to know how many people are subscribed.  Randy?

Kind regards


Debbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: r&d afrac [mailto:rd at afrac.org]
> Sent: 04 July 2005 09:29
> To: Debbie Garside
> Cc: ltru at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Referencing the Scheme within the Tag
> 
> At 08:47 04/07/2005, Debbie Garside wrote:
> >Hi Jefsey
> >I do not wish to add more information into the tag.  I just want to
> >reference the scheme.  The fact that the scheme MAY be updated in the
> future
> >to include additional information is part of the reason for requiring the
> >reference.
> 
> Debbie,
> RFC 3066 is used in a lot of places and the Draft "narrowing" changes its
> nature. It is likely that this new nature will not always be accepted, all
> the more in the new IANA context. This means that we will have several
> coexisting schemes as both the narrowing and the needs will increase. The
> result will probably be complex semantic (look at the added complexity by
> this fist narrowing level, after 18 versions: even the target is to make
> RFC 3066 ter as simple as they wanted RFC 3066 bis to be). There will be
> at
> least three coexisting schemes. This is why it seems much more promising
> to
> work on a private generalised x-tags open space along with an ISO 11179
> approach, where all this issues will have to be addressed in the context
> of
> the present state of the art, without having to rebuild the wheel.
> 
> The only fear I have is that ISO 11179 is complex and may very well be
> another X.500 story. This is why I wish to keep the multilingualism and
> the
> networking aspects under other fora (including IETF) control. So if an
> Internet vision had to emerge (like for LDAP) we could make it more
> easily.
> Designing it in the context of this WG could be possible (it was my
> request
> to ADs when I called for a WG-TAGS) but would call for far more people to
> assemble. I called for that on the IETF main list, but the chair opposed
> we
> had some of them on the list (but never heard about).
> 
> jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru