ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Ltru] Last call comments on LTRU registry and initialization documents

2005-09-10 18:23:48
The problem I have with going to the STD track has nothing to do with the 
process of progressing as a standard. The IESG will decide which track to go 
down and either track suits me fine... provided...

Draft-registry is actually, despite the appearance of being very different, 
very much a particular profile of RFC 3066. Its grammar could be pasted into 
RFC 3066 with no ill effect, since all generative or registered tags extant 
today follow it. The creation of a central registry to mirror the many external 
standards (and rules for choosing among them) also has no deleterious effect on 
implementations because the registry accurately mirrors the rules for tag 
choice in RFC 3066.

There are two problems, though, that must be solved if we are to go down the 
STD path.

1. Is draft-registry "Obsoletes: 3066"?

Many standards, protocols, and formats reference something called "RFC 3066 or 
its successor". Thus the question of whether draft-registry is 3066's successor 
is important to those standards, protocols, and formats. I have no problem with 
BCP 47 being replaced with STD xyz, but everyone will be curious about what to 
do if we have both BCP 47 and STD xyz.

2. When does the registry replace the existing IANA registry?

I don't see how the two language tag registration schemes can coexist 
peacefully. Even if draft-registry is not RFC 3066's successor, there has to be 
some consideration for interoperability between the two.

Thus, I think that, if we go down the STD track for whatever reason, these two 
questions need to be clarified quickly and clearly so that implementers and 
content taggers can made good, informed choices.

I look forward to the IESG's deliberations.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:15 AM
To: Addison Phillips; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ltru(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Last call comments on LTRU registry and initialization
documents



--On Wednesday, 07 September, 2005 12:19 -0700 Addison Phillips
<addison(_dot_)phillips(_at_)quest(_dot_)com> wrote:

Comments on draft-ietf-ltru-registry and
draft-ietf-ltru-initial and, secondarily, on
draft-ietf-ltru-matching...

I've thought a lot about the excellent analysis and comments
in John Klensin's message. My perception is that we have a
divergent view of the structure and significance of the LTRU
draft(s).

First, my thanks for the obviously careful reading and thought.
We may indeed have divergent views, although, after reading your
notes I believe that, in practical terms, we are pretty close
together.
...... <snip to end>


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