IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] RFC4645 to Historic status

Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu> Tue, 05 September 2023 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF380C151064 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 20:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1D3xFJzxVU9G for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 20:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-f177.google.com (mail-pg1-f177.google.com [209.85.215.177]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 879DFC14CE33 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 20:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-56a55c0f8b1so913864a12.0 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Sep 2023 20:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693883998; x=1694488798; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6bjZd9qOvPO00PfQcvZZEN16dXNcAgQdZ6JOZ/QHTAM=; b=DeOneTWIfCeVJiwRVaLB1KzjNh66jws9fRDPVywhkAqWbV8j1bKr3V2uMV81UgfPd6 QCPnu46BrNBHDteXaFxcK0M0HZDcyjHFTpjmxYC+o9VFwepXLrz0AlTnWcW4PojfVGgA 2DkhMGZKlfTaujNLK7NhMQ+Z14cR0DhE1aB7Jn4875YM3g8lAeHHPB6TseEr9nbnFWCG U2yQxBwnw5Rtnrnh9L/Xq3T9E//E5HmGYO7agX1TpcHg9bsV+CwR5wKed9hF6u944Nic 0Z49D6Zt99nAH+bllhTtOVxCp1K41unBQzSFmdpg7WWmAkOq4FZPODKxEDll6jvTW+hr x+dQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyq6LeMeV+FBUbPx0twzyBF12iGoDaw4XkCUmf93TqJdkkKrG+l 1ylDs683vyvIp6HGKFSC9mhoqQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFJqnV0uauMbFkH/OWH0dbouKlXsLiLW4CNaN7fqNmk1Y0kcSmwi9xjtN2SYXE4c1E5e6ZCcg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:3d16:b0:13b:1482:261 with SMTP id y22-20020a056a203d1600b0013b14820261mr11676440pzi.44.1693883997883; Mon, 04 Sep 2023 20:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2601:646:9e01:27d9:54d1:3834:149f:2f1e? ([2601:646:9e01:27d9:54d1:3834:149f:2f1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t18-20020a62ea12000000b00684ca1b45b9sm8256810pfh.149.2023.09.04.20.19.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Sep 2023 20:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fa34a2df-3a0a-29d6-b646-b82b7d41df1c@alumni.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 20:19:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>, "randy_presuhn@mindspring.com" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, "francesca.palombini@ericsson.com" <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <mailman.79.1692212403.2397.ltru@ietf.org> <SJ0PR03MB6598363502C6A1BE8396FEF6CA1AA@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <516549640.3380391.1692310263006@email.ionos.com> <SJ0PR03MB65989AA736D9D1B92161CCB0CA1AA@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <723189438.3387115.1692312008380@email.ionos.com> <SJ0PR03MB6598D695F55085A47BC932E8CA1AA@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <1319152096.906754.1693332108616@email.ionos.com> <SJ0PR03MB6598BF87667F15857328CC7ECAE7A@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAL0qLwYovamEYRSDttam7HkEQCDXQ+F-oSr_Pi8oNpqpnH_z-Q@mail.gmail.com> <460538773.209462.1693444853594@email.ionos.com> <CAL0qLwboUWzUsdna65mR1gAg12DqiCTV1xJ4udcdsPTbOpNaZQ@mail.gmail.com> <127541546.300742.1693472589908@email.ionos.com>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <127541546.300742.1693472589908@email.ionos.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/jc_h97P8fir5sCOoMyfhQCCZSUM>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC4645 to Historic status
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ltru/>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 03:20:03 -0000

Hi -

On 2023-08-31 2:03 AM, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
> 
>> On 08/30/2023 11:13 PM EDT Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:20 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think changing the link was a good idea because it was the source of
>>> confusion.  After more thought, it would be better(and more efficient for
>>> all) if it were labled Historic or removed all together so the next person
>>> who may come across the document won't be forced to read all the way up to
>>> the link that tells them they just wasted thier time, now possibly on
>>> purpose.
>>>
>>
>> Again, I've lost track in all the related threads and explanations.
>>
>> Changing which link, and to what?
>>
>> -MSK
> 
> 
> The link change shown in the errata I submitted https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7605
...

I believe what the IESG says in 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ 
is relevant:

"Broken URIs that were likely valid at the time of publication are, 
strictly speaking, not subject to errata reports. That said, the AD must 
judge the importance of correcting such a reference and may classify the 
report as Verified."

Since, as Doug has already explained, it is unclear why anyone would
reasonably use informational RFC 4645 to find the registry (rather than
going by way of the current BCP, for example), I don't see any
pressing need to accept this proposed erratum, but from the above-quoted
policy the decision is clearly in the hands of the relevant AD.

Randy

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status