Re: [Ltru] Issue #43 (AD comment #10) section 5.1 vs 3.2 on file-date value

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Mon, 13 April 2009 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763003A6C90 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.241
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ILSQ3bp6ubyq for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout10.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout10-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.235]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 60EEA3A6BBC for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22949 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2009 01:50:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by smtpout10.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.235) with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2009 01:50:11 -0000
Message-ID: <0B5DE691021E45F38A8FBAA46BBFCD96@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.29.1239562806.6291.ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:50:08 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #43 (AD comment #10) section 5.1 vs 3.2 on file-date value
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:49:02 -0000

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> If IANA erroneously creates a version of the Registry with a File-Date 
> in the future (and the Official Doug has assured us that this does 
> happen), then the next update may create a situation where the 
> File-Date of the new version is less than the File-Date of the old 
> version.

I fear there may have been a misunderstanding, probably on my part in 
interpreting the original concern.

IANA has never issued a Registry with a File-Date in the future -- that 
is, later than the actual date of issue.  OTOH, they have often issued a 
Registry with a File-Date later than the Added date of any of the tags 
and subtags it contains.  This happens when they insert new subtag 
records with an Added date of X, but don't publish the new file until Y.

Furthermore, as I should have pointed out before, it is *supposed* to 
happen when there is a round of changes that includes no new subtags, 
only modifications to existing subtags (because there is no "Modified" 
date).  This might happen, for example, when the only change is to add 
or delete Suppress-Script fields.  The latest round of changes 
instigated by ISO 639-2 name changes would have been like this, if we 
also hadn't deferred 'Zinh' until that round.

There was an error once (2007-12-05) where IANA forgot to update the 
File-Date at all, leaving it at 2007-11-06, the date of the previous 
update.  This was spotted quickly and corrected the next day.

Michael and I do attempt to batch the IANA requests together so they do 
not receive some today, some tomorrow, some a few days after that, 
because this would surely lead to confusion on the part of both IANA and 
users.  The two-week review periods, often seen as unnecessary in the 
case of uncontroversial or mechanical changes, do help us coordinate 
this.

--
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