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

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 06:49:39 -0700

Dear Editor,

Please find attached the "-10" draft of draft-ietf-ltru-registry.

Best Regards,

Addison (for the editors)

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
http://www.quest.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

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

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:34:03 +0200 (CEST)

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

9.1  Normative References

   [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, 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. (And recall my note about the ISO convention of dated
----> and undated references.) No need to repeat the year twice for any
----> of the references.

   [ISO15924]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
              15924:2004. Information and documentation -- Codes for the
              representation of names of scripts", January 2004.

   [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?

   [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.

   [ISO646]   ISO/IEC 646 JTC 1/SC 2, "ISO/IEC 646:1991, Information
              technology -- ISO 7-bit coded character set for
              information interchange.", 1991.

----> I thought it was agreed that "ISO/IEC 646 JTC 1/SC 2" should not be
----> author (the ISO WG is never cited in referring to published standards).

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

----> I still think this one should not be listed as "normative". It is
----> more "metanormative" for IETF standards, and would then not need to be
----> listed as "normative" for any particular RFC. (ISO standards never
----> refer to the "ISO directives" normatively, only informatively.)

   [RFC2028]  Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
              the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028,
              October 1996.

----> I thought it was agreed that this wasn't (and cannot be) a normative
----> reference.

   [RFC2047]  Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
              Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
              RFC 2047, November 1996.

----> I thought it was agreed that this wasn't a normative reference here.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

----> I still think this one should not be listed as "normative". It is
----> more "metanormative" for IETF standards, and would then not need to be
----> listed as "normative" for any particular RFC.

   [RFC2234bis]
              Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-00
              (work in progress), March 2005.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

----> I thought it was agreed that this wasn't a normative reference.

   [RFC2781]  Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO
              10646", RFC 2781, February 2000.

----> I thought it was agreed that this wasn't a normative reference here.

   [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
              Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.

   [RFC3339]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
              Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              July 2003.

----> I thought it was agreed that this wasn't a normative reference.

   [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.

  /kent k

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:43:21 -0400

> ----> listed as "normative" for any particular RFC.

There's no such thing as "metanormative".  It either needs to be listed as a
normative reference (if it is), or it should be omitted (if it isn't).  If
2119 keywords are used, it's a normative reference.

-Scott-

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:17:06 +0200 (CEST)

> There's no such thing as "metanormative".

I did put it in quotes.

> It either needs to be listed as a

Well, I (nor anyone else apparently) would dream of putting the ISO (IEC)
directives in as a normative reference in an ISO (IEC) standard. I've even
gotten the comment from the ISO central secretariat that one should
not even include "shall" and "should" in the list of defined terms, since
their use is dictated by the directives, and thus applies to all ISO (and
IEC) standards. My take is that normative references are references that
are at the technical level, not at the document authoring level (which
is the level of the definition and use of "shall" and "should").

   /kent k

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:18:45 +0200

Kent Karlsson wrote:

> (And recall my note about the ISO convention of dated
>  and undated references.)

For the "date A" (1988) business the dates are relevant.

>    [ISO3166-1]
[...]
> ----> What about part 3?

Should be added / included, it's used to track code changes
like YDYE.

> Part 2: Alpha-3 code, first edition", 1998.

> Either consistently include edition (for dated references...)
> or consistenly exclude it.

1988 is a magic year here, RfC 3066 and 1766 used precisely
this edition, therefore we ignored crap deprecated before
1988 like NHVU, RHZW, or VDVN.

>    [RFC2026]
[...]
> I still think this one should not be listed as "normative". 

Required as part of the appeal procedure in chapter 3.4

> [RFC2028]
[...]
> I thought it was agreed that this wasn't (and cannot be) a
> normative reference.

Used to explain "IESG" in the same statement where 2026 is
used (normatively), so that's in fact unnecessary, 2026 has
its own explanation of "IESG" in its introduction.  And as
long as 2860 is (ab)used to explain IANA nobody needs 2028,
let alone normatively.

> [RFC2047]
[...] 
> I thought it was agreed that this wasn't a normative
> reference here.

Should be on the same level as 2231 for consistency.

> [RFC2119]
[...]
> I still think this one should not be listed as "normative".
> It is more "metanormative" for IETF standards

No, it is NOT "metanormative", you're free to use your own
funny definitions for MUST, SHOULD, and STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.

So if you want the 2119 definitions 2119 IS normative.  Just
leave 2119 alone, it belongs to "hums" and "BoFs" and other
IETF rituals.

> [RFC2434]
[...]
> I thought it was agreed that this wasn't a normative reference

Not sure about "agreed", but FWIW "seconded".

> [RFC2781]

Dito.

> [RFC3552]

Dito.                    Bye, Frank

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:44:40 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Karlsson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 4:17 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] LTRU submission: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-10
> 
> > normative reference (if it is), or it should be omitted (if 
> it isn't).  
> > If
> Well, I (nor anyone else apparently) would dream of putting 
> the ISO (IEC) directives in as a normative reference in an 
> ISO (IEC) standard. I've even gotten the comment from the ISO 
> central secretariat that one should not even include "shall" 
> and "should" in the list of defined terms, since their use is 
> dictated by the directives, and thus applies to all ISO (and
> IEC) standards. My take is that normative references are 
> references that are at the technical level, not at the 
> document authoring level (which is the level of the 
> definition and use of "shall" and "should").

This isn't the ISO.  In the IETF, we require that 2119 be cited as a
normative reference if it's used to describe conformance langauge.  That's
been the practice for a long time, and it's still the practice today.

-Scott-
(speaking as Area Advisor)