Subject: RE: [Ltru] Summary of IETF last call issues on ltru registry drafts

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:07:40 -0700

The new version is posted on my personal website based on the list of items below. There is an rfcdiff there and idnits has run cleanly.

The URIs are:

  http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.txt
  http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.html
  http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.xml

  http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-registry-12-13-diff.html

I am submitting this document to the I-D editor under separate cover now too.

Best Regards,

Addison (for the editors)

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Randy Presuhn
> Sent: 2005?9?21? 11:23
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ltru] Summary of IETF last call issues on ltru registry drafts
> 
> Hi -
> 
> I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to review
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt and
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-04.txt
> 
> We appreciate the thoughtful comments and discussion.
> The IETF last call comments touched on several issues
> the working group had previously discussed, as well as
> bringing up some new ones.  I'd like to single out the
> GenART reviewer, Elwyn Davies, for particularly helpful
> comments, and John Klensin for the BCP discussion.
> 
> The WG agreed to several changes to the drafts.  For the
> most part, these were clarifications or correction of omissions
> that were readily agreed.  There were, in my assessment, no
> substantive changes.  The most difficult discussion was
> the question of whether the plan to recommend the registry
> description document for BCP, with the initial registry contents
> published as an informational RFC.  The working group's
> plan for the registry description document remains the same,
> but we accepted the suggestion to include in the initial registry
> document a note to the RFC editor requestion the removal of
> the content from section 3.  What would remain of this informational
> document would be the description of how the initial registry was
> generated and other historical background, but nothing that could
> be mistaken for the registry itself would remain.
> 
> The new issues entered into the issue tracker at
> https://rt.psg.com/ (user and password are ietf) are:
> 
> 1107 IETF/LC Transition rules (gen-art 1) resolved
> 1108 IETF/LC Recall of the LSR (gen-art 2) resolved
> 1109 IETF/LC case canonicalization in registry (gen-art 3) resolved
> 1110 IETF/LC define the LSR (gen-art 4) resolved
> 1111 IETF/LC documenting the update load (gen-art 5) rejected
> 1112 IETF/LC various casing issues (gen-art 7) rejected
> 1113 IETF/LC UN economic groupings (gen-art 8) rejected
> 1114 IETF/LC define the LSR (gen-art 9) resolved
> 1115 IETF/LC numeric ranges in the registry (gen-art 11) resolved
> 1116 IETF/LC maintain registration records for every single subtag (gen-
> art 10) resolved
> 1117 IETF/LC include 'grandfathered' ANBF in 'Tag' description (gen-art 12)
> resolved
> 1118 IETF/LC remove MUST from capitalization in registry requirements
> (gen-art 14) rejected
> 1119 IETF/LC give ABNF for Prefix (gen-art 15) rejected
> 1120 IETF/LC ungarble description of Preferred-Value (gen-art 16a)
> resolved
> 1121 IETF/LC case of the subtag in a registration (gen-art 16b)
> 1122 IETF/LC what happens when GF tag and new registration with different
> meaning collide (gen-art 17a) resolved
> 1123 IETF/LC make hypothetical nature of extlang registrations clear (gen-
> art 17b) resolved
> 1124 IETF/LC At least one prefix for variant (gen-art 18) resolved
> 1125 IETF/LC bad GF sentence in S3.2 resolved
> 1126 IETF/LC another GF text problem resolved
> 1127 IETF/LC choice of subtags in multilingual documents (gen-art 19)
> rejected
> 1128 IETF/LC clarifying what a redundant tag is (gen-art 20) resolved
> 1129 IETF/LC frowning on long texts (gen-art #21) resolved
> 1130 IETF/LC remove rules in section 2 duplicated from registry draft
> rejected
> 1131 IETF/LC update entry for zh-guoyu rejected
> 1135 IETF/LC something other than BCP? resolved
> 1136 IETF/LC add singleton for tag URIs rejected
> 
> I'm note including here the (rather lengthy) list of issues that the WG
> had
> already discussed.  There was not WG support for the re-opening of
> those issues, as no new considerations or concerns were introduced.
> 
> I'm hereby asking the editors of the two documents to submit revised i-ds
> incorporating the agreed changes, along with any incidental editorial
> items
> they might have found.  If they feel the need to run any specific wordings
> past the WG, they should feel free to do so.
> 
> Thanks again to all who have spent so much time and energy on this effort.
> 
> Randy Presuhn, ltru co-chair & document shepherd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:13:35 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Summary of IETF last call issues on ltru registry drafts
...
> I am submitting this document to the I-D editor under separate cover now too.
...

Thank you for the quick turnaround.  After we get agreement on words for the
initial registry's section 3 note, and Doug has submitted his update, it will
again be in our AD's hands.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:25:12 -0400

> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:14 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Summary of IETF last call issues on ltru 
> registry drafts
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Summary of IETF last call issues on 
> ltru registry 
> > drafts
> ...
> Thank you for the quick turnaround.  After we get agreement 
> on words for the initial registry's section 3 note, and Doug 
> has submitted his update, it will again be in our AD's hands.

...and I will take both documents to the IESG for evaluation once they have
been updated.

Randy, we do need to produce a short list of last call comments that were
repeats from the working group reviews.    That list will help the IESG
better understand which issues were addressed by the group prior to the last
call and those which were newly identified during the last call.

-Scott-

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:09:18 -0700

Hi Scott -

> From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email-masked]>; "'LTRU Working Group'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:25 PM
...
> call and those which were newly identified during the last call.

In order to summarise the issues brought up on the IETF mailing list
during the IETF last call, I've organized them by issue tracker number,
since many of them were issues that had already been discussed by
the ltru working group.  To see the details in the issue tracker,
go to https://rt.psg.com/ (user and password "ietf").

After each issue number is the brief description of the issue,
whether it was "resolved" or "rejected", the list of URLs in
which it advocated in the IETF last call, and, if necessary,
commentary.  I didn't in general track down all the follow-ups
or refutation; these can be found easily by following the message
threads.

The message references are from the [email-masked] list, with dates
between 2005-08-23 (the start of the IETF last call) and 2005-09-06
(the end of the IETF last call)

Also included here are issues that were brought directly to us, such
as though from the GenART review.  All numbered issues that
were raised during the IETF last call are marked with the string
"IETF/LC", ones that came up during the working group call
have the string "WGLC".

There were a couple of items with no number assigned.
  (a) registry syntax should depend on completion of matching document
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37240.html (Bruce Lilly)
  (I raised this question during the negotiation of milestones for
  the initial charter of the WG, and this is why I insisted that
  an initial version of the matching draft be up for discussion
  before we considered issuing working group last call on the
  registry document. (personal communication to co-chair and ADs))
  However, related issues were discussed at some length in several
  threads, including:
 973 remove material that should be in matching draft resolved
 999 order of subtags resolved
 1000 add Suppress-Script field resolved

  (b)  add a date subtag
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37275.html
  (No one seems to have taken this seriously.)

  (c) separate script tagging from language tagging
  Although the charter arguably precludes this, this is closely related to
  the discussion of  issue #999, order of subtags (resolved)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37240.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37354.html
(Note: Bruce Lilly's i-d on the notion of *completely* separating script
from language identification was discussed at some length on the ltru mailing
list starting April 12, 2005, but received little support due to compatibility
issues with existing protocols.  See the responses
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37299.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37315.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37360.html
In part, I believe, the thinking has been that negotiation algorithms
belonged to the applications and protocols that use language tags,
and as such would not belong in the BCP-to-be.
Note that this question is also touched on in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37468.html )

Issues on the registry draft (internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt):

 890 include character set information in tags rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37314.html

 892 instructions for IANA if registry becomes "too large" rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37222.html

 893 support incremental updates of registry shadows rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37222.html

 945 use "." to separate subtags rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html

 946 use of both length and position to identify subtag problematic rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html

 965 expectation of support for automated reading of registry rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37222.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37230.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html

 966 remove something from security considerations rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37102.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37135.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html

 968 load on IANA server by applications resolved
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37222.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37227.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37230.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html

 1007 future-proofing wrt anticipated ISO 639-6 resolved
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html

 1016 restrict the maximum number of extlang subtags to five resolved
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html

 1027 apply ISO 11179 (metadata registry framework) rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37208.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37257.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37275.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37280.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37337.html

 1033 Written Spoken Signed rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37102.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37275.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37285.html

 1067 WGLC Further clarify distinction between locale codes and language tags resolved
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37255.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html

 1070 WGLC addendum to introduction rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html

 1073 WGLC add IANA adaptation of "UN disclaimer" rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html

 1072 WGLC compatibility principles resolved
 1092 WGLC treat 0- as escape from syntax rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37088.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37101.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37208.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37255.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37257.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37280.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37285.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37286.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37314.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37337.html

 1116 IETF/LC maintain registration records for every single subtag (gen-art 10) resolved

 1117 IETF/LC include 'grandfathered' ANBF in 'Tag' description (gen-art 12) resolved

 1118 IETF/LC remove MUST from capitalization in registry requirements (gen-art 14) rejected

 1120 IETF/LC ungarble description of Preferred-Value (gen-art 16a) resolved

 1121 IETF/LC case of the subtag in a registration (gen-art 16b) resolved

 1122 IETF/LC what happens when GF tag and new registration with different meaning collide (gen-art 17a) resolved

 1123 IETF/LC make hypothetical nature of extlang registrations clear (gen-art 17b) resolved

 1127 IETF/LC choice of subtags in multilingual documents (gen-art 19) rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html

 1134 AD-eval: add "obsoletes 3066" resolved

 1135 IETF/LC something other than BCP? resolved
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37088.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37090.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37101.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37240.html (Bruce Lilly)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37468.html (John Klensin)
Note that the final resolution of John's comments, as worked out on
the ltru WG mailing list, will result in the "gutting upon publication"
of the initial registry document.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37484.html (John Klensin)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37485.html (Joel Halpern)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37493.html (Frank Ellerman)

 1136 IETF/LC add singleton for tag URIs rejected
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37088.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37102.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37135.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37208.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37255.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37275.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37280.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37285.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37314.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37337.html

Issues on initial registry:

 1130 IETF/LC remove rules in section 2 duplicated from registry draft rejected

---------------------------
Randy

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:19:22 -0400

Thanks, Randy, lots of info here.  Should I thus assume that you want the
documents brought to the IESG for evaluation at the next opportunity?  The
next available telechat is 13 October.

-Scott-

> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:09 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> ltru registry drafts
> Issues on the registry draft 
> (internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt):
> 
>  1122 IETF/LC what happens when GF tag and new registration 
> with different meaning collide (gen-art 17a) resolved
> 
>  1123 IETF/LC make hypothetical nature of extlang 
> registrations clear (gen-art 17b) resolved
>

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:54:52 +0200

Dear Randy,
the work achieved is impressive. The regret I have is the tracking 
system of this ontology. As far as I am concerned it makes the 
follow-up harassing. Also confusing due to the necessary rewriting 
you had to do. I listed and documented scores of points which have 
been dutifully entered but often in a different perspective. I only 
find them back because they are marked rejected (they were never debated)

Let be clear. This work uses the IETF to support a SSDO pre-consensus 
other SSDO consensuses (will) technically oppose. So, most of the 
issues will be (are) revisited, hopefully by the IETF (soon, if this 
is not a BCP) or elsewhere. This makes this list precious: the final 
solution is to satisfactorily address all of them (and others other 
experiences and new scopes will add).

I thank all of my opponents for the work achieved in common. I had to 
carry it in a poor way they imposed me by their attitude. I consider 
the resulting document as dangerous, a big and possibly lethal 
mistake for the IETF and a catastrophe for the world. But it is far 
more precise and therefore far easier to contain. The remaining 
blocking issue is the pretension to a market exclusive and the CLDR 
issue. But it can be a temporary default for other SSDO in their way 
to the generalised ISO 11179 compliance we need (and we name 
DRS  "distributed registries system"). However security 
considerations are to be seriously reviewed.

After Harald inputs, Randy said it was up to the Security ADs. I 
announced the langroot registry for 2005/09. Due to this, and to the 
tiny hope that a DISCUSS would permit a "0-" support, we will not 
published it tonight. But appeals would call for it to be operational.

jfc

At 06:09 29/09/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> (Bruce Lilly)
>  1122 IETF/LC what happens when GF tag and new registration with 
> different meaning collide (gen-art 17a) resolved
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:30:15 -0700

Hi Scott -

> To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "'LTRU Working Group'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:19 AM

...

Yes, please do.  We're eager to see this wrapped up.

Randy

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:29:33 -0400

> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 1:30 PM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck
> Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'

OK, will do.  Please watch the I-D Tracker for IESG evaluation details.

-Scott-