Re: [Ltru] Ltru consensus call: rename 4645bis I-D?

I agree; it isn't worth futzing with.

Mark

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:08, Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com> wrote:

> We called it 4645bis mainly because we called 4646bis "4646bis" (that
> document really is a 'bis' document). And it *is* kind of confusing that the
> "first" ID by name is the registry and not the "governing document", but
> that is an artifact of the original RFC number assignment.
>
> Since the ID name doesn't really mean anything and it disappears during the
> RFC publishing process and since one could make the case that it is the
> "second" registry mass update, hence 'bis', I think it unnecessary to change
> the name and would discourage changing it.
>
> If we were to change it, a nice generic name would probably be most
> appropriate: "draft-ietf-ltru-registry", "draft-ietf-ltru-registry-update"
> (which is redundant, since 'ltru' stands for Language Tag Registry Update),
> or even "draft-ietf-ltru-data"??
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:59 AM
> > To: LTRU Working Group
> > Cc: Alexey Melnikov; Lisa Dusseault
> > Subject: [Ltru] Ltru consensus call: rename 4645bis I-D?
> >
> > Hi -
> >
> > Our AD has made a request:
> >
> > > From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
> > > To: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
> > > Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; "Mark Davis"
> > <mark@macchiato.com>; "Chris Newman" <Chris.Newman@sun.com>; "Randy
> > Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; "Addison Phillips"
> > <addison@inter-locale.com>; "Lisa Dusseault"
> > <lisa.dusseault@messagingarchitects.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:00 AM
> > > Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt
> > >
> > > Doug Ewell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alexey Melnikov <alexey dot melnikov at isode dot com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  [...]
> > >
> > > >>> This memo is a new work, not an incremental update of
> > [RFC4645].  The
> > > >>> procedure for populating the original Language Subtag
> > Registry,
> > > >>> specified by the earlier [RFC4646], is included by reference
> > to
> > > >>> [RFC4645].  Therefore, no changes from [RFC4645] are listed
> > in this
> > > >>> section.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am not sure I understand this comment and I don't think I
> > find it
> > > >> convincing. At least one of the acting ADs thinks that any
> > XXXXbis
> > > >> draft must contain "Changes since RFC XXXX" section, which
> > tries to
> > > >> summarize all major changes. (I.e. the AD would put a DISCUSS
> > on the
> > > >> document until this is resolved). Personally I find a section
> > listing
> > > >> all changes to be very useful, but I don't consider lack of it
> > as a
> > > >> blocking issue.
> > > >>
> > > >> If the document is really not a bis draft, then the draft name
> > is
> > > >> confusing.
> > > >
> > > > This is a good point.  Technically, I supposed this is not
> > really
> > > > "4645bis" in the traditional sense.  Rather, it is the
> > accompanying
> > > > document to 4646bis, in exactly the same way that 4645 was the
> > > > accompanying document to 4646.
> > > >
> > > > The paragraph is correct; 4645bis does not start from zero and
> > apply
> > > > the 4645 processes, modulo some "bis" changes.  Rather, it
> > starts from
> > > > the current (post-4645) Registry and applies processes that are
> > > > similar (but not identical) to those of 4645, against different
> > > > standards (ISO 639-3 and 639-5).
> > > >
> > > > If a change must be made to avoid a DISCUSS, then probably the
> > most
> > > > sensible change would be to rename the draft.  Listing all the
> > changes
> > > > from 4645 would be like describing the development of the
> > airplane by
> > > > starting with a recapitulation of the development of the car.
> > >
> > > I would like the WG to reach consensus if the document should be
> > renamed
> > > or not.
> > > Personally I would prefer the document to be renamed, as I find
> > the
> > > whole concept of "this is names as 4645bis, but really isn't" to
> > be
> > > quite confusing.
> > > But I can issue IETF LC on the current document, if this is what
> > people
> > > want.
> >
> > As co-chair...
> >
> > The document in question has the file name draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-
> > 10.txt
> > If we change the name, we'd need to update 464bis accordingly.  I'm
> > not
> > sure how the I-D tracker tool would handle a name change at this
> > stage
> > of the process, but I assume the IESG can cope with it.  The
> > question for
> > this working group is two-fold:
> >    (1) Do we want to change the name of the file?
> >    (2) If so, what do we want the new name to be?
> >
> > We need to hear from the WG quickly so we can put this issue to
> > rest.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>