Subject: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:08:38 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> it needs to be confirmed that such a request relates to
>> actual usage, and is not a "test" of the system or an
>> attempt to "prove" something about the system or its
>> participants or related SDOs.
>
> 1: The intended cleanup of the missing Suppress-Scripts did
>   not work so far.

I think it safe to say there are signficant differences of opinion about 
what it means to "clean these up."

> 2: What's okay for ngo should be also okay for fy and frr.

I see your point that it was inconsistent to say we should only add 
Suppress-Script for language subtags that existed under RFC 3066, and 
then to add it for the new subtag 'nqo' in June.

> 3: I consider statements that my registration request for
>   frr was a bad faith effort as insulting.

It's certainly not as bad as proposing a subtag to try to demonstrate a 
conflict between this group and SDOs or other groups (especially when 
such a conflict doesn't exist).  As it turns out, we have had ample 
oppotrunity over the past year to make a variety of changes to the 
Registry, so there is no longer a need to "test the system" -- it's been 
tested and some of the "opportunities for improvement" have become 
apparent.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages 

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