Subject: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:13:40 -0700

OK, so the final answer is that we will allow 831 and friends to be
registered, after a good faith effort is made to avoid it.  I'll edit
the text in draft-initial to feature the word MAY.

I think we should all take a solemn vow never to allow 830 to be
registered, though, now that 831 and 832 exist.

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

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:49:48 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

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

Just let me know how to do that.  I tried making this a reference to
[I-D.ietf-ltru-registry], but one tool or another didn't like that in
the Abstract.

> "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."

(s/lieue/lieu/)

I'm not sure I see the practical difference, but I made the change.  Do
I need to change the last sentence of the third paragraph of the
Introduction as well?

> 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.

Right, that was a holdover from the days before the current Section 2
was created.

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

I had to delete <?rfc compact="yes" ?> so the text in the nested lists
in Section 2 wouldn't come out all jammed together.  This had the side
effect of introducing the page breaks between sections.  If anyone can
show me a better way to do this, I'd appreciate it.

> "the the" -> "the"

Done.

> "RFC 3066" needs a reference.  (informative)

Done, everywhere RFC 3066 is mentioned.  The one mention of RFC 1766 was
also turned into a reference.  There are now a LOT more references than
before.

I also removed the first hyphen in references like [ISO-639-1], changing
it to [ISO639-1], because that seems to be the convention.  I left
[UN-M.49] alone, since it was just too ugly otherwise.

> "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."

Done.

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

Done, along with similar present/past tense corrections.

> "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"

No, it's *this* document, the initial registry.  The RFC 3066 registry
doesn't have subtags, only whole tags.

> 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].

Addison proposed that text on July 5 to replace "New registrations
completed under RFC 3066 were entered into the ILSR using the rules
defined above."  Personally I agree that no text related to ongoing
maintenance of the registry belongs in draft-initial.  I've commented
out the above text, not deleted it, in case a battle ensues about
retaining it.

> 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.

I agree, and have commented this out as well.  Actually, I think all of
item 11 from "Interested parties" to the end should be deleted, as it
also pertains to registry maintenance, but I'll wait to hear a humming
sound before I do anything about it.

I have not added any references or explanations regarding the use of
Unicode escape sequences.  Section 1 briefly mentions record-jar, but
then defers all other format-related details to [draft-registry].

200 has been expurgated from Section 4.

Draft-initial-02 is now available:
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.html
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.xml

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:06:30 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 1:50 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: editorial nits in initial registry draft -01
> 
> Just let me know how to do that.  I tried making this a 
> reference to [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry], but one tool or 
> another didn't like that in the Abstract.

Don't put references in the abstract.  It has to be complete when separated
from the rest of the document.  If you want to describe another document
that will become an RFC, just use the current I-D name for now and add a
note to the RFC Editor below the abstract to let them know that the name of
the I-D should be replaced with "RFC <whatever>" when the registry document
is published as an RFC.

-Scott-