Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #49: Add reference to RFC 5198 (Apps #2)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 17:25:27 -0600

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> RFC 5198 imposes additional constraints.  These may be harmless, but 
> I'm reluctant to endorse technical change this late in the process. 
> Perhaps those who contributed to the development of RFC 5198 would 
> care to comment?

RFC 5198 actually allows certain things which we do not allow in the 
Registry--NFC is only a SHOULD in 5198 but a MUST in draft-4646bis, and 
5198 allows the bizarre CR NUL sequence which is forbidden in the 
Registry.  So referencing 5198 would still require us to list the 
additional constraints *we* impose.

Section 3.1.1 of the draft already has plenty of external references. 
The only reason to add a reference to 5198 would be to further increase 
the number of cross-references between RFCs, or to effect a technical 
change for some unspecified reason.  I oppose this change.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
(listed in Acknowledgments section of 5198)
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 17:47:33 -0600

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> As I've said before, I think XML makes sense.  However, I do not think 
> the extra delay required to change the specification would be 
> worthwhile, and consequently would only go along with such a change if 
> there were strong support from the implementation community.

XML does make sense, if you're designing a format from scratch.  As it 
turned out, we agreed on the record-jar-like format during the RFC 4646 
process, sometime in 2004, for reasons that would not be appropriate to 
exhume and second-guess 5 years later.

Since there are people already using the existing format, this change 
would result not only in extra delay in the specification process but 
also a breaking change for implementers.  As Randy, said, the WG 
discussed this extensively; there were at least two and possibly three 
separate waves of discussion.  There has to be a point where we accept 
the WG's decision and move on.

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:57:55 -0700

I agree with Doug's points and do not see that a reference to 5198 would add specific benefits.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:25 PM
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #49: Add reference to RFC 5198 (Apps #2)

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

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:23:34 +0900

[co-chair hat on]

I conclude that there is consensus in the WG to not change anything in 
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis for this issue, as argued for by various 
contributors in this thread.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/05/28 9:57, Peter Constable wrote:
> Randy Presuhn<randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com>  wrote:
>

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