Re: [Last-Call] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-core-problem-details-05

[Ira McDonald <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten,

I take your point about copying from a given RFC.

But the history of IETF Language Tags is RFC 1766 (1995), RFC 3066 (2001),
RFC 4646 (2006), and RFC 5646 (2009).  It's a long time since 2009 and, as
Martin noted, there have been a variety of proposals for updating language
tags in the past 13 years, so it's reasonably likely that there will be a
newer
version at some point.  And since language tags are now quite structured,
the chance of not needing syntax changes is fairly low.  This draft RFC from
CORE wouldn't catch up quickly, presumably.

Cheers,
- Ira



*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*








*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*


On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:34 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2022-06-23, at 13:13, Ira McDonald <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > OK - you need to get this CORE document published quickly.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > But I still think that detailed CDDL would be a long-term mistake, for
> the reason
> > that Martin cited - i.e., copying/transforming grammars among RFCs is
> fragile.
>
> Well, the RFC is immutable, so the act of making a copy cannot by itself
> be fragile.
>
> What got us to now propose blunting that grammar is the strong impression
> that there may be less consensus about the grammar defined by RFC 5646 than
> we thought.  So it seems the grammar in RFC 5646 is fragile, not the act of
> copying it out...
>
> https://github.com/core-wg/core-problem-details/pull/40/commits/bbe72e2
>
> (I’m making a point about copying here as I believe copying out snippets
> of CDDL from RFCs and other specifications will be a significant part of
> CDDL 2.0.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>