Re: [Ltru] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis and draft-ietf-ltru-matching

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Tue, 27 August 2019 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6361200C7 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03SGakpd5rz1 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plwbeout03-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtp03-04-2.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.218.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AF83120045 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plgemwbe03-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([72.167.218.132]) by :WBEOUT: with SMTP id 2fZVizHq8zvR72fZViHNbR; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:47:57 -0700
X-SID: 2fZVizHq8zvR7
Received: (qmail 25828 invoked by uid 99); 27 Aug 2019 17:47:57 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 208.51.143.189
User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 6.9.59
Message-Id: <20190827104755.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.0f79efb126.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: ltru@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:47:55 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfJtXrSDpW7hjocOyIW24C5xx2tN7doqWf8Q9hGg3XfJJUTYKBfxLGJTOeSO+jkjiljxHv+DdSGXi9Ra6kopE43FIz8yqitlBynWTKC5XZXDBtX2IW6oQ BseAtxS1Dse0irfLJ05sbaxXhw5TlwUCzkh05BXZxqWjdpAkXmGfAZwe8lIJfBe/Ne6jyYi20Y1ueuIaB28m0N16dOCyxIqTPhw=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/CA0xzAqimJrV_KofLMRhZALyFg8>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis and draft-ietf-ltru-matching
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ltru/>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:48:31 -0000

On July 27, Florian Rivoal wrote:
 
> However, RFC5646 Section 4.5, which defines canonicalization, only
> does so for language tags, not for language ranges. Presumably, the
> process is largely the same, with wildcards in the language subtag
> being preserved, and I suppose wildcards in other subtags would likely
> be dropped. But as it stands, that seems undefined.
 
I think you are on the right track by assuming that ranges are
canonicalized just like tags, with asterisks left alone.
 
It's not very likely that most LTRU participants will be eager to start
up a new IETF project to update 5646 for something like this. Best to go
with your assumption.
 
> Also, while giving recommendations about canonicalization for the
> purpose of filtering, it would seem useful to mention (and possibly to
> recommend) canonicalizing to the "extlang form". The definition of the
> extlang form itself (in  RFC5646 Section 4.5) mentions that it is
> useful for matching and selecting, but that information isn't relayed
> anywhere RFC4647.
 
At the time these documents were written, there was a strong sentiment
around de-emphasizing extlangs in general. It's good to know that
there's a real-world use case for using them here. Again, it's unlikely
that people will want to rev 4647 for this.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org