Subject: [Ltru] Re: Note to RFC editor in initial registry

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:00:36 -0700

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

> Let's see what Doug proposes for the note.  I'd personally prefer
> a reference to the registry draft, rather than putting an URL into
> the note in the initial registry draft.  That would leave fewer
> opportunities for error in AUTH48.

I'll propose some actual text probably Friday night or Saturday, after
I've had a bit more sleep.

The short answer is that I agree with Randy's comment above, and also
agree in principle with his proposed text that simply says of the
initial-registry text, "it was here once, but has been stripped out,"
rather than trying to show the reader how to reconstruct the initial
registry.

Reconstructing the initial registry won't work anyway because the
"Added" date doesn't reflect changes (such as a Suppress-Script field
added to an existing record), and also because the records for
grandfathered and redundant tags have an "Added" date equal to the date
the tag was added to the RFC 3066 registry (unlike the subtag records).

--
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:56:54 +0200

http://vm666.free.fr/tmp/br504.mpg
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:52:02 -0700

Hi -

Offensive, off-topic postings do not merit further comment.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 5:56 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] el truth?
>

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:00:55 +0200

>Offensive, off-topic postings do not merit further comment.

Offensive? Off-topic?
It seems you really have a problem with networked language 
understanding and multicultural real world!
That kind of comment identify the author ....
Please indicate your langtag for that file.
jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:22:56 -0700

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

> By the way, John Klensin proposed that the note be something like
>
> "3.  The initial contents of the registry as specified
> in this document are those entries in the IANA registry
> [IANA-registry] with a field-name of "Added" and a value
> of "2005-07-10".  Note that [ltru-registry, Section 3.1]
> requires that an "Added" field appear in each
> registration record and that its Section 3.3(1)
> specifies that field must not be changed after
> registration."

My concern with this is that it goes beyond the original intent of
restricting the delivery of the initial registry contents to the RFC
Editor, and reducing the size of draft-initial.  It attempts to explain
to the reader how she may reconstruct the initial registry on her own.
Not only do I think this is a non-goal, I can think of two reasons why
it doesn't work:

(1)  The redundant and grandfathered tags don't have an "Added" date of
2005-07-10 (or whatever the actual pub date is).  Instead, their "Added"
date is the same as the date the record was added to the RFC 3066
whole-tag registry.  For example, the "Added" date for i-ami is
1999-05-25.  This could be easily fixed by changing John's text to read
"... and a value no later than '2005-07-10'," being careful to use the
real cutoff date.

(2)  More problematic, for purposes of reconstructing the initial
registry, is the fact that the "Added" date is not changed when a change
is made to the record, such as adding a "Suppress-Script" field where
none previously existed.  This is not an "ambiguity," as Ira stated, but
it does mean that a record with date X might have been modified some
time after X.  In order to allow reconstruction of a previous version,
there would have to be a "Last-Modified" field, and no, I am not
advocating adding such a field at this late date.

I think we need to decide whether we want draft-initial to be simply a
means of communicating the initial registry contents to IANA, or also
allow users at some arbitrary future date to reconstruct the initial
registry somehow.  If we want to stick to the original intent, then we
should simply state that the actual initial contents were stripped by
the RFC Editor to reduce size, prevent misuse, etc. and leave it at
that.