Re: [Ltru] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5646 (5457)

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Sun, 12 August 2018 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.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 93BBA130E3F for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 VmIwHKUzyM5n for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0768D130E3E for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id r24-v6so5961831wmh.0 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GQitnXXG8gG5I3FfH6GRJbec4KuMtmkK+H66QO/npUk=; b=bjk7ubO5ITh+/EEskuYBdINbUN8r56+Irx42zo4hmrLgMKnZObt8KjizjYNlITCsvU GXF/rfzuAnlZXHaV2+7h2NNw2JczGaWY2YNLbBw/VlXaJEs2TjgICblgI2pBoxboiNSb h6wIfLJHuy+LFlTbDveNz2rBp91nie3FfyjyU1TXPfbklmpU9z/nwowPsq8KR2OJ9eSO HOo8wg04BA6cVclkQaxESjyTvKThTRivZqzMGaShOXCqMQAuEMSPs2k+D1bjtGrbOzRw szqoxu2c4NaabOZfcLxRVcE+zfxY/eOrDiC5wF3oE4KStuR1MR56uS8NHIEd6x3cK4gH yHkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GQitnXXG8gG5I3FfH6GRJbec4KuMtmkK+H66QO/npUk=; b=Tfzt6cGtzoF15H8pyanuPvyFbasyQ/Wlb5d46JDCAQodmX9JumgxqoERQ1c5tgnX0C PMUPQPhgWB5F0haj5DPlI7JwN19BF55FVIEke8jHu9DwmvU5usNcWcjY4GBW2t5oh8CF L0R5GnBiUMAoSaH0j9FdEvvfu5+J15ULY7+jpj/huChJrY81hUlR5WEsaxGjUojQDQ4a z59vSzXd1fbhoo/Pj/XO4KccziJ0XlfEUvzGaNLoe2GaNCXbjk1+Hg7OjWoT9YG1KIf/ 2/gJknhrxlV6N0ychOhir9TpGWOBx6RykUnOhUSX4WMXTqHZxtV3KI4IGXmh3TaqCKiS npIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG/aBMS7D5nuKiV2WSL59cK8yG+mmxDMnjzAFqS/5jjWW/jLjaj 6+KBFozaL0g+lvmD+sFD4RPhgEH7wFyYntlMmhWw6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPxM2PZ8aHqhd942ayvMLcRzvg/iG8LNgVcBP0f/WaHw/F7mYS8ZTvOfa1qgNOz0A0ggJNSUklnOEohUOsP0AZ0=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6d17:: with SMTP id i23-v6mr6848615wmc.139.1534106009258; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a1c:8a53:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180812192817.4368FB81940@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20180812192817.4368FB81940@rfc-editor.org>
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 15:33:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD2gp_T99OJmy86vVWW+5O=16odxBbWBuForC80O3VQqfrLTnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: addison@inter-locale.com, markdavis@google.com, ben@nostrum.com, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, adam@nostrum.com, randy_presuhn@mindspring.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, poccil14@gmail.com, ltru@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bae5e4057342e310"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/TSirSMkl7pk7ICLKi72FuRdBC5c>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 15:49:02 -0700
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5646 (5457)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 20:33:34 -0000

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:28 PM, RFC Errata System <
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:


> Sec. 2.2.2 contains an additional validity requirement (point 4): the
> existence of no more than one extended language subtag.  This is not
> reflected in the definition of validity given in sec. 2.2.9 of the RFC.
>

It seems to me that it's 2.2.2  rather than 2.2.9 that's at fault.  2.2.2
says:


       That is, the second and third extended language
       subtag positions in a language tag are permanently reserved and
       tags that include those subtags in that position are, and will
       always remain, invalid.


However, the grandfathered tag "zh-min-nan" is valid by the definition in
2.2.9 even though it has a second extended language subtag. So since the
above sentence is not normative (it merely explains what is believed to be
a consequence of the preceding statements), it should be removed.

In the alternative, we can simply not worry about it:

The Tract produced an immense sensation, for it seemed to be a deadly and
> treacherous blow aimed at the very heart of the Church of England. Deadly
> it certainly was, but it was not so treacherous as at first sight appeared.
> The members of the English Church had ingenuously imagined up to that
> moment that it was possible to contain in a frame of words the subtle
> essence of their complicated doctrinal system, involving the mysteries of
> the Eternal and the Infinite on the one hand, and the elaborate adjustments
> of temporal government on the other. They did not understand that verbal
> definitions in such a case will only perform their functions so long as
> there is no dispute about the matters which they are intended to define :
> that is to say, so long as there is no need for them. For generations this
> had been the case with the Thirty-nine Articles. *Their drift was clear
> enough ; and no body bothered over their exact meaning.* But directly
> some one found it important to give them a new and untraditional
> interpretation, it appeared that they were a mass of ambiguity, and might
> be twisted into meaning very nearly anything that anybody liked.
> Steady-going churchmen were appalled and outraged when they saw Newman, in
> Tract No. 90, performing this operation. But, after all, he was only taking
> the Church of England at its v/ord. And indeed, since Newman showed the
> way, the operation has become so exceedingly common that the most
> steady-going church- man hardly raises an eyebrow at it now.


--Lytton Strachey,* Eminent Victorians* (emphasis added)