Subject: Re: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial registry draft?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:58:36 +0200 (GMT+02:00)

Hi -

We're in second working group last call.  Jefsey has kindly provided
specific text he would like added to the initial registry draft, which is
planned to be submitted for consideration for publication as an Informational
RFC.  Does the WG believe that this addition is technically necessary?

Randy, ltru co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Sent: Aug 5, 2005 6:55 AM
To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial  registry draft?

Dear Randy,

At 18:45 04/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>It's not clear to me how one would apply the recommendations of RFC 2277
>in this case.  Could you suggest some meaningful text to go in the
>internationalizations considerations section you request?  Unless such 
>text adds
>significant technical value to the document, I would argue against making such
>a change at this late stage in the process.  Since the only use of the 
>contents
>of this document is to initialize the IANA registry, I believe any 
>internationalization
>considerations would belong in the registry document, rather than here.

I suppose you are right.
But it is rather odd to document all the languages and the scripts of the 
world in ASCII without explaning why. Some people could think it is because 
of a natural superiority of the Anglicanus Mens.

>I note that both the abstract and the document text are quite clear that they
>are talking about the IANA registry, so I believe the editor faithfully 
>applied the
>change I (not Addison, as you write) suggested.

Oh! I know that you asked to make sure you would block one of my remarks, 
just in case. Addison said he did it. What I say is that the correction is 
in the Abstract only. The IANA exclusive is not repeated in the text.

>On the issue of ISO 11173 alignment, this issue is OLD and 
>rejected.  Reopening
>at this time has not been justified.

I just wanted to make sure you would confirm it, because the text still 
could be construed as permitting such an alignment. May be this could be 
indicated. I suggest the following text:

"This document establishes an independent registry. This registry is not 
intended to be related to any registry, database or content not documented 
in this document."

I suppose this is what you want to say.
jfc

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

---

From: Erkki Kolehmainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:09:36 +0300

Re attached: I don't believe that the addition is technically necessary, 
nor is it particularly helpful as a clarification.

Erkki I. Kolehmainen (RILF)

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:30:18 -0400

> intended to be related to any registry, database or content not documented 

-1.

It doesn't remove any confusions in practice.

-- 
Take two turkeys, one goose, four               John Cowan
cabbages, but no duck, and mix them             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
together. After one taste, you'll duck          [email-masked]
soup the rest of your life.                     http://www.reutershealth.com
        --Groucho