Subject: [Ltru] Action items on draft-initial?

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:50:12 -0700

I don't see any open tickets for draft-initial, but I'm pretty sure
there was an emerging hum to change the references so that the wording
matched the official listings in the online ISO catalog:

[ISO15924] ISO 15924:2004, "Information and documentation -- Codes for
the representation of names of scripts," Ed. 1.

[ISO3166-1] ISO 3166-1:1997, "Codes for the representation of names of
countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes," Ed. 1.

[ISO639-1] ISO 639-1:2002, "Codes for the representation of names of
languages -- Part 1: Alpha-2 code," Ed. 1.

[ISO639-2] ISO 639-2:1998, "Codes for the representation of names of
languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code," Ed. 1.

Is this correct?  Are these current revisions the ones we want to cite?
It would seem logical that we would always want to cite the latest
version of any external standard, but for the initial registry we refer
to "Code elements that were valid on that date [1995] in the selected
standard."  Obviously none of these particular updates existed in 1995;
is this a problem?

What about the UN M.49 standard?  Is the citation we have adequate?
Does UNSD provide a better one that we should use instead?

What about the normative/informative issue?  I don't remember any
agreement as to whether the source standards whose code elements were
used in the initial registry should be normative, and as I said, I would
rather leave that judgment to others.

I'd like to know what the group wants to see here, so I can capture it
in an editor's copy.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:05:45 +0200

>matched the official listings in the online ISO catalog:

Yes.

>rather leave that judgment to others.

I thought this was agreed as normative?

I know the imposed constraints, but I cannot see anything else acceptable 
but normative due to the required global stability. How can we deal with 
the transparent support of updates required in the Charter if not 
normative? The Internet community MUST trust its langtags as totally 
conforming with ISO codes. The Draft's imposed constraints irt. a previous 
request to ISO MA before a request to the Registry would not make sense 
otherwise?

Also, our (and other we see emerging) Open Source approaches and coded 
tables libraries will consider ISO codes as normative (but not exclusive). 
If the Draft is not will we not risk conflicts?
jfc

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:48:01 -0700

> rather leave that judgment to others.

A normative citation, that does not mean that the contents of the source
standard are incorporated, lock, stock, and barrel. Instead, it just means
that reference to that standard is required for implementing this document's
requirements. In the case of the source standards, they are only
*indirectly* required, since the real requirement is in

 [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., “Tags for
Identifying Languages,” June 2005.

*That* document has the normative references it needs. So this document
doesn't need any normative references except to that document.

‎Mark

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:01:29 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 1:50 PM

We should cite whatever it was that was actually used.

> Does UNSD provide a better one that we should use instead?

I wouldn't fret too much about this.  As long as the reference is in
a reasonable form (as enforced by xml2rfc) and there is sufficient
information there to actually locate the document, we're in good shape.
If the RFC editor wants to tweak it, this can be worked out in AUTH48.

> rather leave that judgment to others.
...

I believe the only normative reference in the initial registry draft
should be the reference to the registry draft, since the latter is
the only one of the references that is required to "implement" the
initial registry.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:11:04 -0700

Hi -

a bit more on this...

...

There might by some *minor* differences due to xml2rfc and the reference
format preferred by the RFC editor, but what's important is that there
is sufficient information to get to the right version of the right document.
Tweaks to these are not uncommon during the RFC editing process, so as
long as the correct information is there, within the constraints of what
xml2rfc will do, I wouldn't be overly concerned.

Randy