Subject: [Ltru] Typo in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt?

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:49:07 +0200

4.3.2.  Truncation of Language Tags
 
says:

   Tag to truncate: zh-Hant-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile-private1
   1. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile

Isn't it a typo? The truncation should not change the script, only
remove the last subtag, "private1".

I know it is late to report a typo but, since the RFC is not yet
published, may be it is still time to fix it?

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

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:55:26 +0900

Hello Stephane,

Many thanks for your message. The typo you point out below
was reported by Erik van der Poel in Oct 2005 (see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03953.html),
and it was/will be handled as an "AUTH48" correction before the
RFC is published.

Regards,    Martin.

>published, may be it is still time to fix it?

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:46:07 -0700

But his msg didn't indicate the appropriate fix. I assume it was understood that the starting tag should have had Latn rather than Hant?

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 1:55 AM
> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Typo in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt?
> 
> Hello Stephane,
>

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:10:22 +0200

Peter Constable wrote:

> I assume it was understood that the starting tag should have
> had Latn rather than Hant?

Sure, first the authors checked it, then the AD offered to add
it in an RfC editor note, therefore I checked it after some
strange effect elsewhere with an RfC editor note, then the AD
checked it again because he knew that JFC would check it, then
JFC decided that it's good enough for another appeal, so the
whole IESG checked it again, and now I'm not sure, did the IAB
also check it ?  It must be one of the most checked typos in
the IETF history.  See the end of

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1811&filename=draft-ietf-ltru-registry

Bye, Frank