Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #54: section 3.7 requirements on maintainers of additional registries (Apps #7)

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 15:33:50 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>; "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:23 AM
> Subject: Additional issues with 4646bis raised by an Apps Review Team review
...
> 7). In Section 3.7:
>
> >    Failure to maintain this record, maintain the corresponding registry,
> >    or meet other conditions imposed by this section of this document MAY
> >    be appealed to the IESG [RFC2028] under the same rules as other IETF
> >    decisions (see [RFC2026]) and MAY result in the authority to maintain
> >    the extension being withdrawn or reassigned by the IESG.
>
> It is not clear to whom this procedure applies. If it meant to apply to
> IANA, then it seems to contradict IETF agreement with IANA as specified
> in RFC 2860.
...

As a technical contributor:

This text pertains to a "maintaining authority" for a registry referenced from
the IANA-maintained "extensions registry".  The "this record" refers to
information maintained by that outside "maintaining authority" in the
previous paragraph.

I think the comment could potentially be germane in the hypothetical case
where one of these "maintaining authorities" somehow ended up being
IANA itself.

Randy

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:02:59 +0900

On 2009/05/25 7:33, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Alexey Melnikov"<[email-masked]>
>> To: "LTRU Working Group"<[email-masked]>
>> Cc: "Martin J. Dürst"<[email-masked]>; "Randy Presuhn"<[email-masked]>

[as a technical contributor]

I concur with Randy and others that it is clear enough that this is an 
outside maintaining agency.

> where one of these "maintaining authorities" somehow ended up being

Very, very potentially, yes. But even then, if IANA weren't able to keep 
a record of it's own address, or otherwise keep a registry, the IETF 
would potentially have much bigger problems than a language tag 
extension. (there are quite a few registries that are in a bit of a 
mess, but when that's the case, it's a problem on the IETF side, not on 
the IANA side).
In the highly unlikely case that an appeal against IANA would reach the 
IESG, I expect the IESG to be clever enough to work out how to apply (or 
NOT) the relevant provisions to IANA, and if that doesn't help, I expect 
Subsection 4.2 of RFC 2860 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860#page-3) 
to kick in and solve the problem.

[co-chair hat on]

I conclude that there is consensus in the WG that no fix to this text is 
necessary.

Regards,   Martin.

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

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:10:22 -0700

+1

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of "Martin J. Dürst"
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:03 AM
> To: Randy Presuhn
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #54: section 3.7 requirements on
> maintainers of additional registries (Apps #7)
> 
> Subsection 4.2 of RFC 2860
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860#page-3)
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru