Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #24: Add ISO 639-5 Web references to draft-4645bis

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:53:33 -0700

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

>> NEW:
>>
>> The source data for [ISO639-5] used for this update consisted of one 
>> file, available from the official site of the ISO 639-5 Registration 
>> Authority.  [RFC EDITOR NOTE: this file may be updated before 
>> approval of this memo.]
>
> As co-chair...
> From a process point of view, I think we really need to pick a 
> particular version (even just by saying that we used whatever was 
> available on date FOO) so that IESG review, IETF last call, and the 
> publication process are not on a moving target.

This is the same wording I have used all along for the ISO 639-3 data 
files.  I'd love to pick one version and go with it, but our process is 
moving so glacially slow that I fully expect we will be on a moving 
target anyway.  Remember that the 639-3 data files are updated several 
times a year, with one huge update (several dozen adds and deletes) and 
numerous interim releases (almost one per month during 2008 alone). 
Meanwhile, it has taken us more than three years since the 4646 Registry 
was published to get where we are today.

If you want, I can delete the [RFC EDITOR NOTES] for these two data 
sets, and we can deal with it later if reviewers complain that our 
references are out of date.

--
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: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:59:49 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 6:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #24: Add ISO 639-5 Web references to draft-4645bis
>

> references are out of date.
...

How about this:  [RFC EDITOR NOTE: this file is updated from time to
time.  The version used in the preparation of this memo was the one
in place on DATE.]

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:14:20 -0800

Hi -

As co-chair...

I've marked this issue as closed, using the editor's proposed text.
Since no-one else seems to care about the sub-issue of the exact
wording of the RFC editor note, I leave this to the editor's discretion,
with the understanding that updates to the ISO web site cannot be
"automatically" incorporated during IESG review and IETF last call,
but rather can be folded in only as the result of a specific comment
and with the agreement of the working group and document shepherd.

Randy