I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some
total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change).
Earlier feedback would have been had if there had been
some announcement of the proposed considerable changes
on the ietf-822 mailing list, or via an IETF WG
charter.
This sort of thing is exactly why we last call non-WG documents for four weeks
rather than two. Less review is assumed to have occured and this may well mean
the document is in some sense "less done".
So, while I know of no problems caused by inordinantly long language tags, now
that the issue has been brought up using this opportunity to add a max length
restriction seems like a very reasonable thing to do.
However, we
got considerable pushback on having RFC 3066bis make any previously valid
RFC3066 tag be invalid
Entirely appropriate. And the proposed draft would
invalidate the meaning of the valid RFC 3066 language
tag "sr-CS", which is currently in use.
and any length restriction would do that.
If it makes you happy, you can exclude private-use
tags from an explicit limit.
I would only suggest doing this if it helps us reach consensus.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf