Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #51: MAY in 2.2.4 (E) on Channel Islands (Apps #4)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 16:56:51 -0600

> 4). In Section 2.2.4:
> Why is this a MAY?
> I.e., should this be registered or not?

It may be registered if someone requests it through the normal, uh,
channels.  (As a technical contributor, I think doing so would be a
mistake.)  It is almost certainly not an RFC 2119 MAY, but just a
statement that something is possible.

--
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: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:26:23 +0900

[as a technical contributor]

As a statement that something with regards to the registry is possible, 
it seems very appropriate to me that this is a MAY, in the RFC 2119 sense.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/05/25 7:56, Doug Ewell wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 20:02:25 -0600

Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

> As a statement that something with regards to the registry is 
> possible, it seems very appropriate to me that this is a MAY, in the 
> RFC 2119 sense.

I'm not seeing it, but I'll believe you if you say so:

5. MAY   This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
   truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the item because a
   particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
   it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
   An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
   prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
   include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
   same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
   MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
   does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
   option provides.)

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:30:16 -0700

Martin wrote:

> possible,

This seems reasonable to me too.

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: Sunday, May 24, 2009 6:26 PM
> To: Doug Ewell
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #51: MAY in 2.2.4 (E) on Channel Islands
> (Apps #4)
> 
> possible,