Subject: [Ltru] Remaining issues (59, 61, 63, 62?)

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:31:13 +0900

Dear WG,

As you can see, we have a new version of 4646bis, number 23.
Please refrain from any comments until I know exactly how Alex wants to 
proceed from here. In the tracker, issues 59, 61, and 63 are still open, 
but I hope we can close them soon.

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:28:27 +0100

Martin J. Dürst wrote:

> Please refrain from any comments until I know exactly how Alex wants 
> to proceed from here. In the tracker, issues 59, 61, and 63 are still 
> open, but I hope we can close them soon.

I like resolution for issues 59, 61, and 63. Thanks to everybody.

Text for 62 in -23 is a big improvement, but I like to add the extra 
text you suggested. This can be done as an RFC Editor note.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:48:01 +0100

>> As you can see, we have a new version of 4646bis, number 23.
The most important part is not to post -24 before next Thursday (I am 
hoping we wouldn't need -24 anyway). IESG in general doesn't like when 
documents in IESG review change during the review period.

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:54:02 +0900

Dear WG members,

With draft -23 going to the IESG telechat, we have reached another 
important milestone in the long jurney of this WG. Thanks to everybody!

> I like resolution for issues 59, 61, and 63. Thanks to everybody.

This is great news. If anybody from the WG strongly disagrees with how 
these issues were resolved, please speak up soon. Otherwise, I'll ask 
Randy to close them. (If you think the wording can be slightly improved, 
or if you just okay or just can live with the solution taken (and of 
course also if you like the solution), please refrain from commenting.)

> text you suggested. This can be done as an RFC Editor note.

For everybody's reference, here's the text that we currently have in -23:

    To prevent denial-of-service attacks, applications SHOULD NOT depend
    on either the Language Subtag Registry or the Language Tag Extensions
    Registry being always accessible.  Additionally, although the
    specification of valid subtags for an extension (see Section 3.7)
    MUST be available over the Internet, implementations SHOULD NOT
    mechanically depend on those sources being always accessible.

    The registries specified in this document are not suitable for
    frequent or real-time access to, or retrieval, of the full registry
    contents.  Most applications do not need registry data at all.  For
    others, being able to validate or canonicalize language tags as of a
    particular registry date will be sufficient, as the registry contents
    change only occasionally.  Changes are announced to
    <[email-masked]>.  Changes, or the absence
    thereof, can also easily be detected by looking at the 'File-Date'
    record at the start of the registry, or by using features of the
    protocol used for downloading, without having to download the full
    registry.

And here is the text I proposed to add, in response to Alex's request:
First part, to go after the mailing list address:

This mailing list is intended for interested organizations and 
individuals, not for bulk subscription to trigger automatic software 
updates. The size of the registry makes it unsuitable for automatic 
software updates. Implementers considering integrating the Language 
Subtag Registry in an automatic updating scheme are strongly advised to 
distribute only suitably encoded differences, and only via their own 
infrastructure, not directly from IANA.

Second part, goes at the end:

At the time of publication of this document IANA is making the Language 
Tag registry available over HTTP 1.1. The proper way to update a local 
copy of the Language Subtag Registry using HTTP 1.1 is to use a 
conditional GET [RFC2616].

RFC 2616 will have to be added as a reference.

The overall text (with an additional paragraph break) would look as follows:

    To prevent denial-of-service attacks, applications SHOULD NOT depend
    on either the Language Subtag Registry or the Language Tag Extensions
    Registry being always accessible.  Additionally, although the
    specification of valid subtags for an extension (see Section 3.7)
    MUST be available over the Internet, implementations SHOULD NOT
    mechanically depend on those sources being always accessible.

    The registries specified in this document are not suitable for
    frequent or real-time access to, or retrieval, of the full registry
    contents.  Most applications do not need registry data at all.  For
    others, being able to validate or canonicalize language tags as of a
    particular registry date will be sufficient, as the registry contents
    change only occasionally.  Changes are announced to
    <[email-masked]>. This mailing list is
    intended for interested organizations and individuals, not for bulk
    subscription to trigger automatic software updates. The size of the
    registry makes it unsuitable for automatic software updates.
    Implementers considering integrating the Language Subtag Registry in
    an automatic updating scheme are strongly advised to distribute only
    suitably encoded differences, and only via their own infrastructure,
    not directly from IANA.

    Changes, or the absence thereof, can also easily be detected by
    looking at the 'File-Date' record at the start of the registry, or
    by using features of the protocol used for downloading, without
    having to download the full registry. At the time of publication of
    this document IANA is making the Language Tag registry available
    over HTTP 1.1. The proper way to update a local copy of the Language
    Subtag Registry using HTTP 1.1 is to use a conditional GET [RFC2616].

As above, please speak up if you can't live with this text (both the 
part that's already in and the new additions which will be handled by an 
RFC Editor's note), but otherwise, please refrain from posting.
On this issue, the current resolution in the tracker is different from 
what we have in -23. Randy, can you please update the tracker?

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:01:57 -0700

I am okay with this change. Please note that there should be this one extremely minor correction to this text:

---
frequent or real-time access to, or retrieval, of the full
---

s/, of/of ,/

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of "Martin J. Dürst"
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 3:54 AM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Remaining issues (59, 61, 63, 62?)
> 
> Dear WG members,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:39:33 -0700

+1

Mark

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:01, Phillips, Addison <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > registry
> > registry

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:45:23 -0700

+1

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:40 AM
To: Phillips, Addison
Cc: Alexey Melnikov; LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Remaining issues (59, 61, 63, 62?)

+1

Mark

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:01, Phillips, Addison <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
I am okay with this change. Please note that there should be this one extremely minor correction to this text:

---

s/, of/of ,/

Addison Phillips

> From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] On
>     <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>.  Changes, or the
> absence
>     <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>. This mailing list is
> #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Mark Davis ⌛ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:30:21 -0700

I see only those 3 open issues.

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ltru/trac/report/1

It sounds like you are happy with the disposition, and that any changes "can
be done as an RFC Editor note" based on the consensus here. So it sounds
like we are in pretty good shape, right?

Mark

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 02:28, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>wrote:

>> proceed from here. In the tracker, issues 59, 61, and 63 are still open, but
>> I hope we can close them soon.
>>
>
> Text for 62 in -23 is a big improvement, but I like to add the extra text
> you suggested. This can be done as an RFC Editor note.
>
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:37:42 +0100

Mark Davis ⌛ wrote:

> It sounds like you are happy with the disposition, and that any 
> changes "can be done as an RFC Editor note" based on the consensus 
> here. So it sounds like we are in pretty good shape, right?

Yes.

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:01:28 +0900

I haven't received any mails disagreeing with these issues, so I would 
like to ask Randy to close issues 59, 61, and 63 with the resolutions in 
draft -23, and to change issue 62 to a resolution of adding new text as 
below, with the change of

to

frequent or real-time access to, or retrieval of, the full registry

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:22:43 -0700

Hi -

Done.  At this time, there are no open issues in the
issue tracker.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Remaining issues (59, 61, 63, 62?)

to

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:09:17 +0900

Hello Randy,

Checking issue 62, it seems that the addition of a fair bit of text not 
yet in the current draft (-23) is missing in the resolution in the 
tracker. That text is still included in this mail, at the very bottom.

(I checked for this looking for the word 'conditional').

Can you please update issue 62 accordingly, to reflect what I judged is 
the consensus of the group (and also what Alex wants :-).

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/06/17 3:22, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> From: "Martin J. Dürst"<[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group"<[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Alexey Melnikov"<[email-masked]>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:03:29 -0700

Hi -

Ok, I copied the block of text from the end of the message into the
tracker.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>; "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:09 AM

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:01:29 +0100

>Ok, I copied the block of text from the end of the message into the
I've entered the new text as an RFC Editor note.