Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:

> Ever the optimist, I would hope that such a revision wouldn't require 
> the level of effort needed for the BCP 47 work.

You never know.  In September 2005 on ietf-languages, Peter Constable 
mentioned the upcoming 4646bis effort and said:

"For my part, I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much* 
shorter time that 3066bis has taken."

As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646.

But a quick look at RFC 3282--which is possible, since it's only 8 pages 
long including boilerplate and page breaks--suggests that the following 
changes might be all that is necessary:

* Update reference to ABNF and remove EBNF in sections 2 and 3.

* Update examples in Section 2.1 using i-languages to use ISO 639-based,
  grandfathered, hypothetical 5-to-8-character registered, or private-
  use tags instead.

* Consider a simple update to Section 4, possibly just a pointer to the
  security section of 4646bis.

* As suggested by CE Whitehead, update reference to Language "Tag"
  Reviewer (which was correct at the time 3282 was written) to refer to
  the Language "Subtag" Reviewer instead.  (On the other hand, it's just
  an acknowledgement.)

* Split references into normative and informative.

* Update [TAGS] reference to 3066 to point to 4646bis instead.

* Consider removing references to ISO standards, as the syntax and
  content of tags are fully defined by 4646bis and the Registry.

This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an individual to 
prepare and submit an update without experiencing the surreal delays of 
the LTRU process, and without being subjected to undue slings and 
arrows.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ