I would like to understand why
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt
claims to be a BCP: it introduces a standard track proposition,
conflicting with current practices and development projects under way?
I support it as a transition standard track RFC needed by some, as
long as it does not exclude more specific/advanced language
identification formats, processes or future IANA or ISO 11179
conformant registries. In order to avoid conflicts, its ABNF should
be completed in dedicating a singleton to the general tag
URI
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kindberg-tag-uri-07.txt
accepted RFC).
jfc
At 18:45 23/08/2005, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Language Tag Registry Update WG to
consider the following documents:
- 'Initial Language Subtag Registry '
<draft-ietf-ltru-initial-04.txt> as an Informational RFC
- 'Tags for Identifying Languages '
<draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt> as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by
2005-09-06.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-04.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf