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

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