IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatibility of registry processors.

"Doug Ewell" <dewell@roadrunner.com> Sun, 15 July 2007 06:03 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9xC8-0006uV-2R; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:03:00 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I9xC6-0006uP-IL for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:02:58 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9xC6-0006uH-84 for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:02:58 -0400
Received: from mta13.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.44]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9xC5-0004BQ-TF for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:02:58 -0400
Received: from DGBP7M81 ([76.167.184.182]) by mta13.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20070715060221.DMES15912.mta13.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81>; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:02:21 -0400
Message-ID: <012f01c7c6a5$b4489e70$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <E1I9ghp-0006L9-0h@megatron.ietf.org> <011d01c7c66d$3dbe3900$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81> <20070714233255.GR9402@mercury.ccil.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatibility of registry processors.
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:02:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> and so adding new fields will break strictly 4646-conformant 
>> processors
>
> I don't think so.  There is no claim in 4646 that there are no other 
> fields.  "Be liberal in what you accept" is a general IETF principle.

I would have sworn there was such a claim in 4646, but all I can find 
now is inclusionary wording in Section 3.1:

Each record MUST contain the following fields:
   o  'Type'
   o  Either 'Subtag' or 'Tag'
   o  Description
   o  Added
Each record MAY also contain the following fields:
   o  Preferred-Value
   o  Deprecated
   o  Prefix
   o  Comments
   o  Suppress-Script

implying (at least to me) that each record MAY NOT contain any other 
fields.  This may not be as strict as I interpret it, but in any case 
there is no explicit wording (unlike in draft-4646bis) that other fields 
may be added in the future and should be ignored by processors that 
don't recognize them.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email