Subject: [Ltru] Another draft-4645bis needed

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:05:57 -0700

As it turns out, there will have to be a draft-4645bis-10 after all, for 
two reasons:

(1) Even though I amended the text to include "International Sign" among 
the sign languages that are extlangs, I somehow managed to omit it from 
the Registry contents.

(2) I had already made the change to region subtag YU to remove the 
Preferred-Value of CS and add John Cowan's comment, before Randy started 
using the issue tracker and making decisions.  Randy says this is a 
matter for ietf-languages and not this list.  Since 4646 doesn't permit 
Preferred-Values to be changed, I suppose it will just have to wait 
until 4646bis and the new Registry are published, and then be proposed 
on ietf-languages.  In the meantime, I need to revert these changes in 
draft-4645bis.

Additionally, ISO 639-3 has once again updated their data files, for the 
second time since the big annual update on January 20.  Draft-4645bis 
doesn't have to be updated every time this happens, but as long as 
another revision is already needed, I may as well update the references. 
I don't know how many more 639-3 changes will come between now and draft 
publication; I imagine there will be quite a few.

--
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:20:26 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:05 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Another draft-4645bis needed
...
> the sign languages that are extlangs, I somehow managed to omit it from 
...

This has been added as issue #21.  The proposed resolution is to
add the missing entry.  I assume this will be utterly non-controversial.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:21:45 -0800

Hi -

...
...

I've added this as issue #22.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:22:45 -0800

Hi -

...
...

I've added this as issue #23.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:28:12 -0800

Hi -

...

I've created three tickets for these issues.  In my judgement as
co-chair, these should all be rather non-controversial, so let's
put them on a short timer: unless controversy erupts, I'll be
closing these early Saturday morning (Feb. 14) California time.

Randy

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:27:29 +0100

I would prefer not to revert this particular change (and I guess you mean
"preferred-value for YU"). Doing so would go against the principle of
shortcutting preferred-value chains, with the idea that a preferred value
should always be a non-deprecated value. The added comment (for YU) is fine
as it is in draft 9, and better than in this case a misleading
Preferred-value.

    /kent k

Den 2009-02-13 10.21, skrev "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>:

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:17:11 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #22: revert preferred-value for CS
>

...

Both as a technical contributor and as WG chair...

My concern is that this WG should not be making changes to the
content of existing registry entries unless absolutely necessary.
Making changes to existing entries is properly the job of the LSR
and [email-masked]

I agree that this is a corner case, due to the technical change
in the handling of preferred-value chains.  I'd be comfortable
allowing the it *iff* the LSR and the good people on
[email-masked] agree to the change.

Randy

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:05:47 -0800

I view this as part of the transition to the new version, which resolves
recursive preference relationships.

Mark

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:10:27 -0800

Hi -

Seeing no further discussion, I've marked this issue "closed",
to be resolved as proposed by the editor.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:12:00 -0800

Hi -

Seeing no further discussion on this issue, I've marked it
as "closed", to be resolved as proposed by the editor.

Randy