IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Sat, 14 July 2007 23:33 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 1I9r6j-0004VJ-Rg; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:33:01 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I9r6i-0004VB-J9 for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:33:00 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9r6i-0004V3-9a for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:33:00 -0400
Received: from earth.ccil.org ([192.190.237.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9r6e-0007ta-1y for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:33:00 -0400
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1I9r6d-00028S-Qx; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:32:55 -0400
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:32:55 -0400
To: Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatibility of registry processors.
Message-ID: <20070714233255.GR9402@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <E1I9ghp-0006L9-0h@megatron.ietf.org> <011d01c7c66d$3dbe3900$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <011d01c7c66d$3dbe3900$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
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

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> This is fine, and the right thing to do for 4646bis, but the point still 
> remains that this wording isn't in place for the current spec, RFC 4646, 
> 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.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
        --Murray Gell-Mann


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

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email