[Ltru] Re: UTF-8

"Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net> Sun, 17 September 2006 23:43 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GP6I3-0004ww-Gs; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:43:11 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GP6I1-0004wd-Ur for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:43:09 -0400
Received: from mta10.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.202]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GP6I0-0008HM-NJ for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:43:09 -0400
Received: from DGBP7M81 ([68.67.66.131]) by mta10.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060917234308.GCZB27224.mta10.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:43:08 -0400
Message-ID: <019301c6dab3$07e30f00$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <dewell@adelphia.net>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <E1GP4Vk-0004p8-HK@megatron.ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:43:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Subject: [Ltru] Re: UTF-8
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

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> By the way: nothing says we have to put the actual updated registry 
> into the I-D. Yes, we did it that way last time. But that is NOT the 
> only way to transmit data to them. And I purposely selected the text 
> in 4646bis-00 to *not* specifically state what form the update would 
> take.

In that case, there would be no point in having a 4645bis, since the 
rules for bulk-revising the Registry could be incorporated directly into 
4646bis.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

> I would suggest that it would be just as easy and/or better to specify 
> that the LSTR (via his technical helper, aka Doug) create and verify 
> the updated registry before forwarding it.

I completely defer to the "pros" who have lengthy experience working 
with IETF and IANA on things like this.

> In fact, I've been thinking about text that Doug could use in 4645bis 
> to manage the interregnum process and I'll send that to the list 
> shortly.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RFC 4645  *  UTN #14


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