At 18:53 28/08/2008, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
1. If you wish to be "fully interoperable with IETF solutions", may I recommend that if you're serious about your proposal, you read those "5500 RFCs". I am surprised how many people are trying to re-invent the wheel, starting from the guy at IETF that presented a protocol which basically did what AlohaNet did back in 1970 & Packet Radio henceforth.
2. I'm afraid that ISO 3166 has nothing to do with national scripts & languages. The official name is Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions. You're speaking solely of ISO 639. You're also missing ISO 15924 - Codes for Writing Systems, aka Codes for the representation of names of scripts.
Dear Olivier, We definitly agree. I am also surprised by how many people are trying to re-invent the world, starting from the guy at ALAC that did not get a copy of ISO 3166 before teaching about ISO TC37 and TC46 deliverables, making the usual IETF confusion between "codes for wrting systems" and "codes for the representation of names of scripts" and ICANN (ICP-1) confusion on in his blog: "I pointed them to ISO (International Organisation for Standardization, a United Nations funded Organisation) ....". There are truely so many things to know... This is why we try to limit ourselves to the ones which really count.
As for the rest of the post, I'm sorry but I can't understand it.
This is unfortunately the IETF engineers' main problem: they genuinely cannot understand what the users say. I first tried to help these "1983 Internet" 5500 RFC scientits, having myself designed a few network things outside of the Internet. However, I understood why I had to give up after reading RFC 3774 and 3935. I then only kept relating, very positively and sometimes rewardingly, with the few ones sharing the views IAB expressed in its RFC 3869. May be will you be one of them and understand better an IAB RFC than a post of mine? "It is generally agreed that the security and reliability of the basic protocols underlying the Internet have not received enough attention because no one has a proprietary interest in them". It turns out that the only ones who actually have a proprietary interest in the basic protocols and may have some capacity, as Rafik noted, to pay attention to them are the @larges, the Internet lead users. IAB says "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.". This ALAC thread only shows that IAB was right. IAB explains : " In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." As you know, I personnally faced the exclusion of open standards and won, both obtaining an RFC 4646 that could stay interoperable with ISO 3166 and defeating the ISO NWIP (New Work Item Proposal) introduced by the Bristish Standard Institution that tried to partly overturn this open standard success. Derek quoted an URL including this (I expect you respect Steve Bellovin): "Steve Bellovin at Columbia University sent me some additional papers that might interest readers and that indicate that discussions about this problem go back at least as far as the late 80s. He wrote about BGP security issues in a 1989 paper (the .pdf includes commentary that was written about his paper 15 years later). He also mentioned a 1999 National Academies study that he and Steve Kent worked on that warned of routing and the DNS protocols "as the two biggest threats to the Internet" and a bogon routing paper (.pdf) by Nick Feamster and others at MIT. "In other words," Bellovin says, "the good guys have been warning about this for 20 years, and nothing has happened!" I only hope this may help you accept that if the current Internet technology meets the ROAP, IPv6 deployment, DNS, BGP, etc. problems this may not just be bad luck. I paid my due for a long time, trying to trust the IETF to do something about all these problems Now, it is "Women, children and users first". I say nothing else. jfc