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

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:13:43 -0700

This is a unified response to several messages, so don't anyone jump to
any conclusions until you've read the whole thing.

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

> 3.  The remainder of this section specified the initial set of subtags
> for the registry.  This material was deleted on publication of this
> memo, to avoid any confusion with the registry itself
> [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].

What is the role of the reference [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] here?  In
this context it looks like a pointer to the registry, which is not true.
Draft-initial is already chock-full of references to draft-registry
without adding another non-essential one.

I suggest deleting the reference, and also adding the word "potential"
before "confusion," though I'm not dogmatic about the latter.

> Each of these initial entries has an "Added" field value prior
> to YYYY-MM-DD.  Note that [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] Section 3.3(1)
> specifies that this field must not change after registration.
> Other fields in these records may subsequently be modified,
> subject to the restrictions in Section 3.4 of
> [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].

I still would like to avoid specifying the literal date.  If we do,
we'll have to be really, really sure we don't miss updating this in the
closing moments.

> RFC EDITOR NOTE: the remainder of this section is to be deleted upon
> publication.

Good so far.  (Lest anyone forget, this is whole purpose of this
exercise.)

> I think that all is really needed is the first paragraph and the note.
> I'll go along with the second paragraph if folks think it's really
> useful and necessary, but I'd be happier without it.

I'm fine with removing it, because I don't think there should be any
need to re-create the initial registry.  The current one is what's
interesting.

Later:

>> ... How about:
>>
>>     ... with "Added" field values no later than the date of
>>     publication of this document.
>
> I like this a lot.

Good, if we have to have this paragraph at all.

>>     Because of this, it may not be possible to use a future version
>>     of the Language Subtag Registry to reconstruct an exact copy of
>>     the initial registry contents.
>>
>> Comments?
> ...
>
> If folks think we need any text on reconstruction, I think this
> addition would be an important one.  (I'm still not convinced that we
> need to say *anything* about reconstruction, though I'm willing to go
> along with it.)

Agreed.

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:

> That would work even better. And I too would be happy with just the
> one paragraph.

In a private message, it was also suggested to use "records" instead of
"subtags," and I agree with this (some records are for tags, not
subtags).

OK, so here's what we have now:

<proposed-text>
3.  The remainder of this section specified the initial set of records
for the registry.  This material was deleted on publication of this
memo, to avoid any potential confusion with the registry itself.

<!-- possible second paragraph -->
<!--
Each of these initial entries has an "Added" field value no later than
the date of publication of this document.  Note that Section 3.3 (1) of
[I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] specifies that this field must not change after
registration.  Other fields in these records may subsequently be
modified, subject to the restrictions in Section 3.4 of
[I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].
-->
<!-- alternative possible second paragraph -->
<!-- this assumes an initial registry File-Date of 2005-12-01 -->
<!--
Each of these initial entries has an "Added" field value prior to
2005-12-02.  Note that Section 3.3 (1) of [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry]
specifies that this field must not change after registration.  Other
fields in these records may subsequently be modified, subject to the
restrictions in Section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].
-->

[RFC EDITOR NOTE: the remainder of this section is to be deleted upon
publication.]
</proposed-text>

Comments?

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

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:36:35 -0700

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 9:13 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Note to RFC editor in initial registry
...
> memo, to avoid any potential confusion with the registry itself.

Looks good to me.  Ship it.  :-)

> restrictions in Section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].

I could live with either of these, but would be happier without them.

...

Looks good; thanks for sorting through all the comments.

Randy