Subject: [Ltru] Re: LTRU submission: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-10

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:48:36 -0700

Kent Karlsson <kentk at cs dot chalmers dot se> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I'm still not happy with the references.

I'm sorry to hear that, because it seems to me that most of the things
you're not happy with (a) are dictated by tools we do not have the power
to change, at least not today, (b) are not any different from other RFCs
that reference ISO standards, and (c) can be changed by the RFC editor
anyway if he sees fit.

>  [ISO10646]
>             International Organization for Standardization, "ISO/IEC
>             10646:2003.  Information technology -- Universal Multiple-
>             Octet Coded Character Set (UCS), as, from time to time,
>             amended, replaced by a new edition or expanded by the
>             addition of new parts", 2003.
>
> ---> Remove the excess spaces,

What excess spaces?  Surely you're not talking about the double space
after "10646:2003."  A double space in that situation is actually
preferred over a single space; see Section 3.1, item 7 of
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt.  But surely a single "excess" space
in a reference is not cause for rejecting a document.

> remove the ", as, from time to time,
> ---> amended, replaced by a new edition or expanded by the
> ---> addition of new parts" as that is absolutely not part of
> ---> the title.

Probably true.

> No need to repeat the year twice for any
> ---> of the references.

Except that (a) we were supposed to use the name of the document from
the online ISO catalog, and (b) xml2rfc makes us insert a date.

>  [ISO3166-1]
>             International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 3166-
>             1:1997.  Codes for the representation of names of
>             countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country
>             codes", 1997.
>
> ---> What about part 3?

The draft doesn't reference part 3.

>  [ISO639-1]
>             International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-
>             1:2002. Codes for the representation of names of languages
>             -- Part 1: Alpha-2 code", 2002.
>
>  [ISO639-2]
>             International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-
>             2:1998. Codes for the representation of names of languages
>             -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code, first edition", 1998.
>
> ---> Either consistently include edition (for dated references...)
> ---> or consistenly exclude it.

I thought you wanted us to use the listings straight out of the online
ISO catalog.  That is what they have.

>  [UN_M.49]  Statistical Division, United Nations, "Standard Country or
>             Area Codes for Statistical Use", UN Standard Country or
>             Area Codes for Statistical Use, Revision 4 (United Nations
>             publication, Sales No. 98.XVII.9, June 1999.

OK, my turn.  I take this opportunity to point out, as I have done
privately, that the correct name is "United Nations Statistics
Division," not "Statistical."

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

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:07:43 +0200 (CEST)

> to change, at least not today,

I did not comment on that in my previous mail.

> (b) are not any different from other RFCs
> that reference ISO standards,

Ditto.

> and (c) can be changed by the RFC editor
> anyway if he sees fit.

Maybe so.

> the online ISO catalog, and (b) xml2rfc makes us insert a date.

There is no need to mention the year twice. If it cannot be put only where
ISO puts it, include it only where the tool requires it.

> ISO catalog.

Yes.

> That is what they have.

No. Look again. The ISO catalogue (at www.iso.org) is consistent on this
point. The edition nr. is always given, but separately from the title.

> Division," not "Statistical."

Which I corrected too, in the edited version of the references
section that I sent the other day. I did double-check all the
non-RFC references. Again, I don't see the need to repeat subitems
twice, though here it is not the year that is repeated.

    /kent k