Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:17:21 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

>> 1) What do you think is most needed after our current drafts are
>>    approved (and published as RFCs). What are the next steps?
>>    In what order/priority?
>
> This group's next major task will be a minor revision of 3066bis when 
> ISO 639-3 is approved later this year. After that we should go away.

We also need to decide what to do about ISO 639-6.  We've already 
reserved 4-letter primary language subtags for "possible future 
standardization" (Section 2.2.1), which really means 639-6.

ISO 639-6 is scheduled for publication in 2007, and although publicly 
available information is still sparse and there are still questions 
about how it should interoperate with the rest of RFC 3066bis/ter, I 
think it would be a mistake for this group to "go away" before having a 
chance to discuss it.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 21:15:48 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 2:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter Discussion
>
...

I think it's important to draw a distinction between keeping a working
group active and keeping its mailing list going.  There is no point in
having an active working group unless there are chartered deliverables,
but it would be perfectly reasonable to keep the WG's mailing list going
in order to discuss things like 639-6, in anticipation of requesting a
charter to produce so deliverable when the time comes.

Randy

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:27:37 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

>> We will also need to reload the registry from another I-D so that 
>> IANA does not need to process six thousand individual additions.

I think it's worthwhile to ask whether we would also want this new I-D 
to be an RFC, as we did with draft-initial.  The number of new subtags 
will actually be over 7,000 and the I-D will probably be about 850 pages 
long.  As it is, at least one person characterized the 118-page 
draft-initial as a vanity endeavor, even though the RFC Editor is 
supposed to remove the list before publication.

> Probably one with just the additions, rather than a wholesale 
> replacement.  This avoids complicated interregnum periods and such.

As some folks know, I've already mocked up a prototype 3066ter Registry 
that incorporates the DIS 639-3 data as it exists now.  Besides the 
newly added subtags, there are changes to the descriptions of existing 
subtags (639-1, -2, and -3 don't always agree perfectly on the names) 
and there are also the changes John mentioned.

Given the clerical issues we've already experienced with IANA on the new 
Registry, I think we will have to watch over the reloading process very 
carefully, and doubly so if we expect IANA to merge deltas intelligently 
into the existing Registry.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Editor, draft-ietf-ltru-initial

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:18:02 -0700

> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]]

> and there are also the changes John mentioned.

I've asked the folk at SIL to work on improving consistency between names listed on the 639-2 and 639-3 sites.

Peter Constable