ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last call comments on LTRU registry and initialization documents

2005-09-09 09:18:28
John C Klensin <john dash ietf at jck dot com> wrote:

(i) Internet-Drafts and RFCs are different creatures.
It is perfectly acceptable, indeed common, to have text
in I-Ds that no one intends to see in a final RFC.

Understood.  The WG decided that the initial-registry I-D should be an
RFC, for various reasons.

So, all I was suggesting wrt the text of the "initial" document
is that, when the IESG concluded that it had reached community
consensus, two things should happen:

(1) The IESG instructs IANA to create the registry,
populating it with the elements as instructed in the
Internet-Draft  and using the formats specified there
and in the "registry" I-D.

(2) The document is passed to the RFC Editor for
publication, but with a note indicating that the 100 or
so pages of subtags should be dropped and replaced by a
paragraph that explains how the initial subtags, as
specified by the WG process, can be identified from the
registry itself.   I _strongly_ prefer that the relevant
paragraph be constructed and approved by the WG itself,
rather than being made up by one or more IESG members; I
assume the IESG would feel the same way.

That makes sense to me.  Other members of the WG, and in particular the
chairs, have orders of magnitude more experience with this sort of thing
than I do, and so I can't speak to whether it makes sense to them.

How you get from there to "withdraw... replace ...instructions
to duplicate work..." is unfathomable to me, but it certainly
was not what I was suggesting.

I apparently misread this passage, which you wrote and I quoted:

| Normally, we don't even write a "create
| the baz registry" document.  Instead, we write a "baz protocol
| specification" document and include a more or less long section
| that instructs IANA to create the registry, what to put in it,
| and how.

I am delighted that my interpretation was wrong.

Unless I've missed
something, it ought to be problematic only if, somehow, the WG
believes that there is "credit" for an RFC in proportion to its
page count.  That belief would be, AFIK, pretty novel around the
IETF.

That was definitely not my intent, nor that of anyone else in the WG.
Indeed, I pointed out that if LTRU is ever revised to incorporate
subtags based on ISO 639-3 codes, the additional registry information
would occupy 740 pages, and suggested that this amount of material might
be inappropriate to publish as an RFC or even an I-D.

A 118-page draft consisting almost entirely of a code list certainly
shouldn't impress anyone by its length, any more than a 1,000-page phone
book.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>