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

CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com> Thu, 06 August 2009 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33153A6C29 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2cKAh8Xq9Bna for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.102]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59BF3A68D2 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU109-W6 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:40:12 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU109-W6CA859753ECAD561A8247B30A0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_3da3c37a-3ca4-4dd0-9f21-5ea0c7b14d4b_"
X-Originating-IP: [168.13.191.67]
From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
To: <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:40:11 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2009 23:40:12.0086 (UTC) FILETIME=[3DA77560:01CA16EF]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:40:10 -0000

 Hi, RFC 3282 seemed quite short, the one easy read I've had here. From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org> 
 
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 19:37:38 -0600 
 
"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
It's short!
> --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.
Yes, for the most part we need current examples. Thanks, C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar@hotmail.com
> * 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.)
How do you keep all this in memory ???
> * 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