Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Wed, 05 August 2009 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
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 42F3E3A69FB for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 SS4gtdgjEauB for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D243A6F3E for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=tfY6EITOi4Eso0mUYf2vOHCw5Xts5W8QLz5Ht6FIxAxIXP5+nrGB2HRur9c8IJNs; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.35.226.75] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1MYYwE-0006Vw-Do for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:21:22 -0400
Message-ID: <032801ca158c$d088a020$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:23:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88884f945684cbf6968fa0e37b99391e9f82fc083ed3bc68f51350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.35.226.75
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:21:21 -0000

Hi -

As a technical contributor (returning from two blissful weeks without email) ...

> From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:34 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
>
> The one bit of language tagging infrastructure that we have not revised
> since this whole body of work has started is RFC 3282, which defines
> Content-Language and Accept-Language.

That was outside the scope for which ltru was originally chartered.

> This morning I had cause to want to reference it, but a desire not to
> (since it depends on 3066 rather than the current-and-future BCP 47).
> I'm pretty sure that the whole machinery of a WG is not needed to
> revise this document--I'm thinking it would make a suitable individual
> submission.

I agree.

> But I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone had thoughts about
> whether it were necessary, whether this list would make a suitable
> place to solicit comments,

(As co-chair) This seems reasonable for now.  If it turns out to require
significant discussion, or if a better WG "home" appears, we
can redirect the discussion at that time.

> and whether anyone thought a WG charter were necessary for
> same (this last I studiously hope is not the case).

(As technical contributor) I would not support adding this work
to the ltru charter.

Randy