Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #50: Change registry format to XML (Apps #3)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 22:26:34 -0600

Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> quoted the WG 
Charter:

> The working group will clarify text where necessary. It may also make 
> adjustments to the registration process and the form of the registry 
> if this is deemed appropriate based on ongoing registration and 
> operational experience. These adjustments and clarifications are not 
> expected to delay the progress of the work.

In fact, IIRC this very general wording was inserted into the charter to 
allow the possibility of changing from "record-jar-like format with hex 
NCRs" to "record-jar-like format in UTF-8," which is what we did.  It 
could conceivably have allowed for changing the Registry to XML or any 
other suitable format, but as Martin noted, that's more of an overhaul 
than an adjustment.

> For many registries which are currently maintained just in an ad-hoc, 
> ill-defined format, this could potentially be a great improvement.

The registry used in the RFC 1766/3066 era leaps instantly to mind.

> However, it would be strange if the IETF took a willingness of IANA to 
> move to XML as an order to IETF WGs to change their formats to XML. 
> This would reflect extremely badly on the autonomy of the IETF and its 
> ability to make decisions in the best technical interest of the 
> relevant communities.

+1

--
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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:03:53 -0700

I agree in general with opinions already expressed:

- XML was considered and there was no consensus to change.
- There are useful reasons to consider XML; there were also legitimate reasons for not changing.
- It was possibly in the scope of the current charter, but certainly not the specific intent and arguably beyond it. To make such a change is something that should only be considered under a new charter (if someone wishes to propose) and not as part of the current project.

I do not wish to see a change to XML for the LSTR at this time.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 9:27 PM
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #50: Change registry format to XML (Apps #3)

+1

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

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:21:17 +0200

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:03:53PM -0700,
 Peter Constable <[email-masked]> wrote 

> - XML was considered and there was no consensus to change.

In the interest of archive fans, the discussion was in
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg09734.html>

It seems that the last set of "issues" were raised by someone who did
not take the time to check the archives...

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:25:58 +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. The WG has discussed this issue 
already, and a wide variety of reasons has been given for why a change 
to an XML-based format at this point would be a bad idea.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/05/28 22:21, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>   Peter Constable<[email-masked]>  wrote

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