Skip to main content

Appeal to IESG against AD decision: one must clear the confusion opposing the RFC 3066 Bis consensus (JFC Morfin; 2006-02-20) - 2006-02-20
Appeal - 2006-02-20

From: r&d afrac []
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:18 PM
Cc: 'Martin Duerst'; 'Randy Presuhn'; 'LTRU Working Group';
Subject: RE: appeal to IESG against AD decision: one must clear the
confusion opposing the RFC 3066 Bis consensus.

Dear IESG Members,
A confusion develops over the implementation of RFC 3066 Bis. This confusion
leads to a probable disrespect of the WG-LTRU consensus and IESG
approbation. I opposed the RFC 3066 Bis "built-in" confusion and the
resulting harm I foresaw to the community and I observed to my own work.
With pains a consensus has resulted into a rather clearer and structured
document I can survive.

However a laspus calami, I asked in vain the Chairs and the AD to correct,
introduces new confusions. I am now paradoxally to defend the WG-LTRU and
Ithe ESG 15/11/2005 decision against those who engaged a PR-action against
me for having suposedly disrupted its building consensus process, while I
actually lead it (may be this why they do not want to respect the text we
eventually agreed).

The impact of that confusion is such that, if was not corrected, I would
have to appeal to the IAB in fully documenting the issue. This means that I
would have to introduce the language naming system experimental registry,
and its IETF oriented preparation and management
mailing list in annex of my appeal.

  1. I introduced a request to correct a damaging laspsus calami. At 19:39
    11/02/2006, r&d afrac wrote:

Dear Scott, Randy and Martin,
I note from different debates, there is a rising confusion between:
- the RFC 3066 registration process and the RFC 3066 Bis Language Subtag and
Extensions Registries,
- the Language Tag Reviewer appointed by the Application AD and the Language
Subtag Reviewer appointed by the IESG
- assigns the purpose of
"Review of language tag registrations, and language tag issues. See RFC
3066." to the mailing list. It does not assigns
it any role in language subtag and extension registration and language
subtag and tag extension registries issues.

This confusion opposes the consensus of this WG-LTRU, leads to a IANA matrix
inappropriate description, legitimates a bitterness which is detrimental to
the whole effort of this WG and to the image of its created IANA registries.
I track this confusion in particular to the very page header of RFC 3066
Bis. Over the years of preparation of RFC 3066 Bis it became common to refer
to the "languages tags" as "langtags" and to the RFC 3066 IANA registration
as "Language Tag Registry" (a term not used in RFC 3066) or to
"langtags-registry". This may explain the lapsus calami no one noticed in
the RFC 3066 Bis page header: "langtags-registy" should be

I do not know how this lapsus can be corrected. But what was presented as a
"typo" has been changed. I therefore formally introduce the request of the
correction of this obvious lapsus.

NB. I also trace the confusion in the enforcement of a Draft by the IANA,
by-passing the normal completion of the Internet standard process cycle. We
all know the kind, the origin and the reasons of pressures (now applied to
the IESG itself) which lead to this, when the IANA strived to better
efficiency under a new Director. I can only blame them and regret their

  1. Having no reply I had to appeal the AD. Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006
    10:14 AM

Dear Scott,
I am sorry to be obliged to introduce another appeal.

I submitted a formal request to have an RFC 3066 Bis lapsus calami to be
corrected on Feb. 11th, 2006.

  1. the text of that mail is attached.
  2. I did not even receive an acknowledgment.
  3. the confusion introduced mares the WG-LTRU consensual RFC 3066 Bis
    application process, resulting in confusion by the IESG (Chair, AD, Members)
    and propositions opposing the RFC 3066 Bis text. For this
    reason I copy the IESG list.

Thank you for your consideration of this much needed and urgent correction.

  1. I received the following decision: at 6:31 20/02/2006, Scott Hollenbeck

The request of this appeal appears to be a challenge to the page header
found in this document:
The header text in question is the "langtags-registry" abbreviation.


The title of this document is "Tags for Identifying Languages". The
abstract further states:

"This document describes the structure, content, construction, and semantics
of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to indicate the
language used in an information object. It also describes how to register
values for use in language tags and the creation of user defined extensions
for private interchange."

I find that the current abbreviation is consistent with both the title of
the document and the text that describes its purpose. Appeal denied.

The document describes two things:

  1. a language tag system to indicate the language used in an information
  2. the registries (plural) to be used in forming the tags of this system.
    None is a single "langtags-registry".

This means that RFC 3066 Bis obsoletes the RFC 3066 IANA Language tags
Registry. And creates 2 new Registries.

The IANA numbers.html where all the concerned Registries are to be listed,
now includes accordingly:

Language Tags - OBSOLETE
RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt No further registrations in this registry.
Language Tags Directory
- OBSOLETE RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt No further registrations in this
Language Subtag
Registry RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt Expert Review (Michael Everson)
Tag Extensions Registry

We are now in a situtation where :

  • the RFC 3066 Bis documents tells it is is about an OBSOLETE registry,

  • the IANA respects the RFC 3066 Bis text and creates a "Language Subtag
    Registry" and a "Language Tag Extensions Registry" (as per RFC 3066 Bis
    which secifies that "languuage tags extensions" are made of language tags
    and of subtag extensions),

  • the IETF Chair confuses the two different ietf-languages mailing lists
    (the one to support the OBSOLETE Registry, the one to support the new registries),

  • everyone confuses the obsolete registry Language Tag Reviewer and the new
    Language Subtag and Tag Extension Registres Language Subtag Reviewer.

  • this confusion extends to the Obsoleted Registry Language Tag Reviewer who
    still discuss the mission of Language Tag Reviewer when proposed the mission
    of Language Subtag Reviewer. He is obviously not aware that the subtags do
    not really involve languages (except as already approved or reviewed by ISO)
    nor scripts (except as already approved or reviewed by himself as ISO 15924
    author). It also seems that he has not realised that the new Registries
    would jump from 72 in 10 years to several tens of thousands items in one to
    three years.

  • the Area Director finds consistent the abbreviation at the origin of this

These issues are very serious for the text and contents industries and the
Internet economic model.
I object his humour or his decision.