Subject: Re: [Ltru] Section 2.2.2 exhaustive specification of possible prefixes

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:06:59 -0600

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

> In general, I'd all be for such flexibility, but I'm a bit worried
> that it a) would allow the RA to use macrolanguages in the abstract,
> without knowing what the impact on the actual coding would be (which
> might have them use macrolanguages more than necessary) and b) might
> lead to a repetition of the extlang/nextlang arguments on
> ietf-languages, without much of a chance for conclusion, and without
> even the concept of "rough" consensus.

This suggests that I may have spoken too soon about the RA not being
influenced by RFC 4646bis.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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