r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote: > No. I say directly or indirectly you cannot reference an third party. I've never heard of a requirement for RFCs, or even BCPs, that says informative references may only consist of ISO standards and other RFCs. Can you point me to a reference? > Unicode is a consortium of private interets, the same as W3C, etc. I don't see how this is relevant, but would it make a difference if we referenced ISO/IEC 10646 instead? Can you point me to a reference that says the work of an industry consortium may not be cited in an RFC? > This WG is to deal with ISO 639, 3166 and 15924, plus UN M.49 (in a > way I partly disagree with because the format is confusing). Outside > of that no other code has been accepted: because no other maintainer > has committed to stay compatible with these codes and her commitment > accepted by the IETF. Both Unicode and ISO 10646 are referenced in numerous RFCs. >> I don't see what ISO 639-4 has to do with any of this. > > ISO 639-4 is the ISO document which commits on the consistency of ISO > 639 series, 15924 and 3166 series. ISO 639-4 is a committee draft. We can't be required to adhere to a standard that doesn't exist yet. > The author of ISO 639-3 being at the origin of all this effort, I > undersnand that he insisted on ISO 639-3. This comment is not relevant to the document under discussion, which does not support ISO 639-3. (It can't, since that standard is also in draft stage.) -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ 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.