Subject: [Ltru] Re: Status of draft-4645bis-00

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:48:45 -0700

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

> If you post the draft to the list please add the size (6xy KB)
> in the subject.

Good point, I forgot to mention that.  What I was planning to do was 
post the draft to the list, MINUS the Registry contents, and provide a 
temporary URL to the contents.  No way do I want to spam the mailing 
list with 640K of data.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:53:11 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> What I was planning to do was post the draft to the list,
> MINUS the Registry contents, and provide a temporary URL to
> the contents.

Okay.

> No way do I want to spam the mailing list with 640K of data.

The I-D will be a world record... :-)  BTW, I propose that we
fix en-boont and en-scouse silently to "redundant" instead of
"grandfathered", the language subtag review list got that wrong.

RFC 4646 3.3 3rd paragraph says "MAY have their type converted
to 'redundant'; see item 12 in Section 3.6".  This is a typo, it
should be item 12 in section 3.4, and I think it's not optional
if new variant + prefix intentionally match a grandfathered tag.

Frank

P.S. for Addison:  please say "item 17 in Section 3.4" in 4646bis

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:14:03 -0700

> if new variant + prefix intentionally match a grandfathered tag.

You can fault our conversion of English to RFC 2119-ese here. The 
sentence really should have said something more like:

"... might have had its type converted..."

:-)

I will correct this in draft-01.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 06:33:42 +0200

Addison Phillips wrote:
 
> You can fault our conversion of English to RFC 2119-ese here.
> The sentence really should have said something more like:
 
> "... might have had its type converted..."

Yes, if the new variant is unrelated the tag better stays
grandfathered.  Or let's just reserve the few pseudo-variants:
either they're registered matching the grandfathered tag, or
they're off limits.  Nobody needs gaulish if it's not related
to cel-gaulish etc.

> I will correct this in draft-01.

Thanks.  And submit that item number / section as an erratum.

While they didn't have the time to publish a trivial erratum
for 2045 submitted by the author after 20 months this doesn't
imply that this state of the rfc-editor errata is acceptable.

Frank