Re: [Ltru] Factual correction

[Martin Duerst <[e-mail]>]

[co-chair hat on]

As a co-chair, I have added a note on
http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp/2006/IETF/ltru/
with a pointer to the archived form of the mail below
(issue 57).

If anybody thinks that they would have made a different
decision without this confusion, please speak up.

Regards,    Martin.

At 18:06 06/11/03, Martin Duerst wrote:
>[co-chair hat off]
>
>It has come to my attention that in my long mail addressing the points
>in JFC Morfin's IETF Last Call comments on our matching draft (archived
>at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg05013.html),
>there was a factual incorrectness.
>
>In the paragraph that read:
>
>   The commenter seems to claim that draft-ietf-ltru-matching conflicts with
>   draft-ietf-ltru-registry (here called RFC 3066bis) because the later
>   defines well-formed tags while the former does not require well-formed
>   tags. The reason for not requiring checking for well-formed tags when
>   matching was discussed extensively in the WG. There is a very clear reason:
>   requiring this would require to check the IANA language subtag registry,
>   potentially for every matching operation, which was considered operationally
>   infeasible. It would also be an unnecessary performance punishment for
>   those who actually use well-formed tags. In general, non-wellformed
>   tags or ranges will simply not match anything, which is just fine.
>
>the sentence that said:
>
>   There is a very clear reason: requiring this would require to check the
>   IANA language subtag registry, potentially for every matching operation,
>   which was considered operationally infeasible.
>
>was factually wrong. Well-formedness checking does not need online access
>to the registry, only one-time access when the checking software is built
>to get the list of grandfathered tags. Strictly speaking, not even validation
>does require online access to the registry, because validation can be done
>with respect to a specific registry date.
>
>The rest of the paragraph, in particular the following three
>sentences, are unaffected by this.
>
>   The reason for not requiring checking for well-formed tags when
>   matching was discussed extensively in the WG.
>   It would also be an unnecessary performance punishment for
>   those who actually use well-formed tags. In general, non-wellformed
>   tags or ranges will simply not match anything, which is just fine.
>
>I would like to appologize for any confusion this may have created.
>I personally do not think there was anything unclear in the draft
>(now an RFC), or anything that the WG would have done differently.
>My guess is also that this problem would have been spotted very quickly
>by quite some WG participants if it hadn't been burried in the middle
>of a very long mail answering another very long mail.
>
>Regards,     Martin.
>
>
>#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
>#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[e-mail]     



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[e-mail]     


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru