IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, sections 1 to 3.4

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 06 December 2007 16:44 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 1J0Jq4-0001KT-0y; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:44:40 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Jq1-0001F2-Uy for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:44:37 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Jq1-0001Er-9Q for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:44:37 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Jpz-000514-Qx for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:44:37 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 491181C01BA; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:44:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BB31C01B8; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:44:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BFD58ECC5; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:44:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:44:35 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Message-ID: <20071206164435.GA29246@nic.fr>
References: <20071206163755.GP10807@mercury.ccil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20071206163755.GP10807@mercury.ccil.org>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-5-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, sections 1 to 3.4
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

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:37:55AM -0500,
 John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote 
 a message of 78 lines which said:

> 2) In 3.1.2, I'd prefer to say that implementations MUST rather than
> SHOULD ignore undefined fields in the registry.  There is no reason
> why implementations should not be required to be liberal in what
> they accept.

I believe it would forbid a registry-checking application (like the
one IANA should run after any change). So, it seems a bad idea.



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email