Subject: [Ltru] [Fwd: Lisa's comments on 4646bis]

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:03:21 +0100

FYI.

Subject: Lisa's comments on 4646bis
From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
To: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Cc: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>,"Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>, Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>, Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:34:44 +0100

Hi Lisa,

I found your comments in the IDtracker:

> The reference to 2028 isn't normative. That reference merely describes 
> the IESG.

Agreed. I've added an RFC Editor note asking to move it.

> The reference to 2026 is normative because the process defined here 
> builds on a process
> defined in 2026.

Agreed. It is already normative, so nothing needs to be done.

> The reference to 2277 isn't normative.  It's documentation of how a 
> decision was made,
> not required "to implement" or even to understand langtags.

RFC 2277 is referenced when talking about "i-default":

   7.  The grandfathered tag "i-default" (Default Language) was
       originally registered according to [RFC1766] to meet the needs of
       [RFC2277].

I agree this part is informative.

       It is used to indicate not a specific language, but
       rather, it identifies the condition or content used where the
       language preferences of the user cannot be established.  It
       SHOULD NOT be used except as a means of labeling the default
       content for applications or protocols that require default
       language content to be labeled with that specific tag.  It MAY
       also be used by an application or protocol to identify when the
       default language content is being returned.

This seems fairly normative to me. Opinions?

I do wonder now if 4646bis is actually updating section 4.5 of RFC 2277.