Re: Proposal for additional Aliases to IANA registry of character sets

[umavs@ca.ibm.com]

Harald:

Guardianship is NECESSARY -- I am not questioning it at all.   The current
guardians are doing a good voluntary job.

If you take the example of IBM-819 for 8859-1 as an alias, since the
procedures are not clear, in the eyes of the requester 'should be'
perfectly acceptable for registration.  However, it may not be, from the
view point of other factors that are not spelled out in the registration
procedure.  If it is not written down as such the assumption from the
submitter's point of view is that it is permitted.  Then we get the review
comments saying it should not be allowed for reasons that are very valid
from some perspective or the other.  To the submitter of the request, this
looks sort of arbitrary.

Personally, I kind of like the freedom for any aliases for anything --
without requiring implementations to respect/understand anything but the
primary names / ENUM values, and optionally understand any or none of the
aliases.  It will contribute to promoting the IETF protocols everywhere
both on the Intranet side as well as the Internet side -- with all the
positive benefits arising from such common use.  They differ in "degrees of
Openness" in interchange.

Your point about 'IETF is voluntary effort from people willing to do the
work' and  your invite to propose drafts for revision are well-taken.
Thanks for that reminder.

Where does my request for aliases stand  -- besides the two controversial
ones?  What do I have to do to get the non-controversial ones accepted?
It is also well past the two weeks comments period.

Best regards, Uma

V.S. Umamaheswaran, Ph.D.
Globalization Centre of Competency,  IBM Canada Lab, 8200 Warden Avenue,
B3/979, Markham, Ontario,  L6G 1C7
Ph: +1 905-413-3474 (Tie 969); Fax:905 413 4903; Internet:
umavs@ca.ibm.com; Notes: umavs@ibmca; VM: umavs@torolab2