Subject: [Ltru] Additional issues with 4646bis raised by an Apps Review Team review

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 13:23:06 +0100

This is the first batch. I received a fairly long list of comments and 
still deciding what to do with the rest.

1). In Section 3.5:

>    The ietf-languages list is an open list and can be joined by sending
>    a request to <[email-masked]>.  The list can be
>    hosted by IANA or by any third party at the request of IESG.

It is not clear how the "third party" option would interact with IANA 
managing the registry.
The lists either have to be managed by IANA on an IANA system or have to 
be routed through IANA systems.
If there is a desire to be able to delegate handling of this mailing 
list to a third party, then perhaps
the mailing list should be in a separate subdomain, e.g. 
[email-masked].
I think this needs to be discussed further with IANA.

2). In Section 3.1.1:

>    Each field can be considered a single, logical line of characters.
>    Each field contains a 'field-name' and a 'field-body'.  These are
>    separated by a 'field-separator'.  The field-separator is a COLON
>    character (%x3A) plus any surrounding whitespace.  Each field is
>    terminated by the newline sequence CRLF.  The text in each field MUST
>    be in Unicode Normalization Form C (NFC).

You should consider referencing RFC 5198 here.

3). Registry format: IANA is switching its registries to XML. The WG 
should consider switching the format. Alternatively 4646bis should be 
updated to specify reasons for keeping the existing format.

4). In Section 2.2.4:

>        E.  For historical reasons, the UN numeric code 830 (Channel
>            Islands), which was not registered at the time this document
>            was adopted and had, at that time, no corresponding ISO
>            3166-1 code, MAY be entered into the IANA registry via the

Why is this a MAY?
I.e., should this be registered or not?

>            process described in Section 3.5, provided no ISO 3166-1 code
>            with that exact meaning has been previously registered.

5).  The citation of RFC 2860 in the first paragraph of Section 2.2 is 
improper. 2860 does not define IANA (which is considered a well-known 
abbreviation by the RFC Editor) or any of its properties that are 
relevant to this specific set of registries. So this reference is both 
improper and unnecessary.

6). In Section 2.2.3:

>    2.  Script subtags consist of four letters and were defined according
>        to [ISO15924]--"Codes for the representation of the names of
>        scripts": alpha-4 script codes, or subsequently assigned by the
>        ISO 15924 registration authority or governing standardization
>        bodies, denoting the script or writing system used in conjunction
>        with this language.  Only codes assigned by ISO 15924 will be
>        considered for registration.

The first sentence is hard to understand. It looks like it has misplaced 
punctuation.

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.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:10:47 -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
...
> I think this needs to be discussed further with IANA.
...

As co-chair:

I've entered this into the tracker as ltru issue #48.

For sanity's sake,  PLEASE include the issue number in your postings
on this topic, and PLEASE do not comment on multiple issues in a single
message.  Mixing issues in a thread only slows things down.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:14:30 -0700

Hi -

...
...

As co-chair...

I've entered this into the tracker as issue #49.

Please include this issue number in your subject line in any postings
on this topic, and PLEASE do not post on multiple issues in one message.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:18:14 -0700

Hi -

...
...

As co-chair:  I've entered this into the tracked as issue #50.
PLEASE include this number in the subject line of any
messages commenting on this issue.  Please do not
comment on multiple issues in a single message.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:22:04 -0700

Hi -

...
...

As co-chair:

This has been entered into the track as issue #51.  Please include the
issue number in the subject line of any posts on this topic.  Please
limited each thread to a single topic.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:25:42 -0700

Hi -

...
...

As co-chair...

This has been entered into the tracker as issue #52.
We give these issues numbers for a reason.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:28:28 -0700

Hi -

...
...

As co-chair: entered into the tracker as #53.  Please use this number
in your subject line when commenting on this issue.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:32:13 -0700

Hi -

...
...

As co-chair:  entered into the tracker as issue #54.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:35:08 -0700

Hi -

...

As co-chair...

These have been entered into the issues tracker at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ltru/trac/report/1

Followup discussion will take place in single-issue threads (please!)
in order to make it easier to determine consensus on what to
do about each of these.

Randy

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:18:44 +0200

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 02:14:30PM -0700,
 Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]> wrote 

> on this topic, and PLEASE do not post on multiple issues in one message.

By the way, is it possible for an ordinary WG member to update
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ltru/>? I thought so and I tried to add
URLs to the previous discussions about #49 (such as
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg11980.html>)
but, after a long time, I get a blank page and no error message and
the ticket is not updated.

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 17:59:24 +0900

I guess Randy should be able to answer this question, but he's away.
I haven't been able to get a grip on this tracker myself, so for me, the 
question is more "can anybody except Randy handle this" rather than "can 
ordinary WG members update issues". But that may simply be a bilateral 
problem between me and this tracker.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/05/28 22:18, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>   Randy Presuhn<[email-masked]>  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]