Subject: [Ltru] Last Call for draft-4645bis?

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 07:15:21 -0600

I request that the co-chairs declare a Last Call on 
draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-06.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:08:28 +0900

>draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-06. 

As requested by Doug, I herewith declare a WG Last Call on
draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-06.txt. In my recollection, this is
the first WG Last Call on this document, and in accordance
with IETF practice, it will therefore last for 2 weeks.
The deadline for comments is Sunday, October 26, 24:00 Hawai'ian
time.

Everybody please read the document and send in comments,
saying that it is okay as is or telling us what you think
needs to be changed. Please note that while the document
is extremely long, the textual parts are rather short,
and comments only on the textual parts are also very welcome
(of course, checking the data, either by machine or manually,
is also very much appreciated).

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:35:55 +0200

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:08:28PM +0900,
 Martin Duerst <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-06.txt. 

I've reviewed the document (do not worry, I take my time and I did it
before the last call).

As already mentioned here, I automatically tested the new registry (for
things like broken pointers to languages) and found no error.

I do not see any serious problem with the text either.

A few editorial details:

* "inverted", used several times, does not seem to be formally defined
somewhere

* I'm a bit concerned that the rationale for the list of
macrolanguages in 2.2 is not exposed. If you want to know why Akan is
treated differently from Uzbek, you have to dig into the LTRU
archives.

---

From: Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:26:21 +0900

draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17 says in sec. 3.1.3:

"Deprecated's field-body contains the date the record was deprecated. In 
some cases this value is before that of the associated 'Added' field in 
the registry."

Although this thread is for the last call of 4645bis, I am wondering 
about the reason for the statement. "In some cases this value is before 
that of the associated 'Added' field in the registry.", since the ording 
of fields in 4645bis is not required.

I created (yet another) XML version of the registry, see
http://www.w3.org/2008/05/lta/02/lsr.xml
And a schema for its validation
http://www.w3.org/2008/05/lta/02/lsr.xsd
Which checks various MUSTS from sec. 3.1 of draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17 
against the 4645bis draft. I did not find any errors. I also read the 
text of draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17 and did not find any issues.

Felix

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:18:47 +0900

Hello Felix,

>draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17 says in sec. 3.1.3:

In that case, please change the subject, and submit issues on
different documents in different mails. Thanks.

>"Deprecated's field-body contains the date the record was deprecated. In some cases this value is before that of the associated 'Added' field in the registry."
>
>Although this thread is for the last call of 4645bis, I am wondering about the reason for the statement. "In some cases this value is before that of the associated 'Added' field in the registry.", since the ording of fields in 4645bis is not required.

I have to agree this can be improved. From your quoting, it isn't exactly
clear, but it seems that you are proposing to add ", since the ording of fields in 4645bis is not required." to this sentence. I would propose
to change this to ", since there is no prescribed ording of the fields
in a record."

I also have to say that "Deprecated's" feels really ugly.
What about changing this to:

The field-body of a Deprecated field contains the date...

Regards,    Martin.

>Which checks various MUSTS from sec. 3.1 of draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17 against the 4645bis draft. I did not find any errors. I also read the text of draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17 and did not find any issues.
>
>Felix
>
>Martin Duerst さんは書きました:
>>> I request that the co-chairs declare a Last Call on draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-06.     
>>

---

From: Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:28:00 +0900

> different documents in different mails. Thanks.

You are right, sorry for not doing that in the first place.

> to change this to ", since there is no prescribed ording of the fields

sounds good to me.

> The field-body of a Deprecated field contains the date...

Also fine by me.

Felix

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:55:32 -0700

> The field-body of a Deprecated field contains the date...

(editor hat ON)

I didn't make this change because EVERY field uses the same form.

I can change it, but it would be purely editorial.

Addison

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:39:03 +0900

>I can change it, but it would be purely editorial.

I strongly suggest that you do that, for every field.
The main reason is that this is something that the RFC
editor will probably pick up, and it's easier for us
to fix it now than to fix what they might mess up
(in German, there is the verb "verschlimmbessern",
meaning trying to make it better but making it worse;
that would apply here, but I don't know the English
equivalent).

Regards,   Martin.