Subject: [Ltru] editorial nits in initial registry draft -01

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:07:35 -0700

Hi -

A few minor editorial comments on the -01 registry draft.

Need to ensure that the "RFC 3066bis" in the Abstract gets replaced with the
actual RFC number during the RFC editing process.

"This memo does not define the permanent contents of the registry." isn't
quite what we need to say.  If there's no objection, I suggest something like
"Since the contents of this memo only serve as a starting point for
the registry, it is inappropriate to use this memo in lieue of the registry."

The last sentence of section 1 ("The process for determining the contents
of this registry is defined  in Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].") isn't needed,
since that material immediately follows.

(I bet the RFC editor gets rid of the inter-section page breaks.  :-)

"the the" -> "the"

"RFC 3066" needs a reference.  (informative)

"This section defines the process used to create the initial registry entries." ->
"This section describes the process that was used to create the initial registry entries."

"The initial set of records is based on the following standards:" ->
"The initial set of records was based on the following standards:"

"7.  Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that are not deprecated, consist
      entirely of subtags already in this document, and have the correct" ->
"7.  Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that were not deprecated, consisted
      entirely of subtags already in that document, and have the correct"

/    8.  Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that contain one or more subtags
      that either do not match the valid registration pattern or are not
      otherwise defined by [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] were converted to
      corresponding records of type "grandfathered" in the ILSR. / ->
/    8.  Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that contained one or more subtags
      that either did not match the valid registration pattern or were not
      otherwise defined by [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] were converted to
      corresponding records of type "grandfathered" in the ILSR. /

/      9.  Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that have a notation that they
      are deprecated were converted to records of type "grandfathered"/ ->
/     9.  Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that had a notation that they
      were deprecated were converted to records of type "grandfathered"/

"original tag is superseded by [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry]." ->
" original tag is superseded."

Do we really need this paragraph  in this document?
   Any additional registrations completed after the adoption of
   [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] using the rules in RFC 3066 will be
   incorporated into the Language Subtag Registry using the rules
   defined above, or will result in the submission of appropriate
   records by the Language Subtag Reviewer according to the rules in
   [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].

This paragraph also doesn't belong in this document.
   All existing RFC 3066 language tag registrations will be maintained
   in perpetuity.
It's about registry maintenance, rather than initialization.

Randy

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