IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, sections 1 to 3.4

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Thu, 06 December 2007 17:02 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 1J0K7m-0006H4-9s; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:02:58 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J0K7k-0006Gq-J9 for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:02:56 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0K7k-0006Gh-9c for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:02:56 -0500
Received: from earth.ccil.org ([192.190.237.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0K7k-0006Su-3I for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:02:56 -0500
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1J0K7g-00017a-LF; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:02:52 -0500
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:02:52 -0500
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <20071206170252.GR10807@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20071206163755.GP10807@mercury.ccil.org> <20071206164435.GA29246@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20071206164435.GA29246@nic.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, sections 1 to 3.4
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

Stephane Bortzmeyer scripsit:

> > 2) In 3.1.2, I'd prefer to say that implementations MUST rather than
> > SHOULD ignore undefined fields in the registry.  There is no reason
> > why implementations should not be required to be liberal in what
> > they accept.
> 
> I believe it would forbid a registry-checking application (like the
> one IANA should run after any change). So, it seems a bad idea.

Fair enough.  Concedo.

-- 
"Well, I'm back."  --Sam        John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email