IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?

"Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com> Fri, 24 July 2009 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <addison@amazon.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 97F063A6A84 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 5Atab-NQQy3s for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com [207.171.184.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94353A6974 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,265,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="247515965"
Received: from smtp-in-0201.sea3.amazon.com ([172.20.19.24]) by smtp-border-fw-out-9101.sea19.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Jul 2009 15:34:48 +0000
Received: from ex-hub-4101.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-4101.ant.amazon.com [10.248.163.22]) by smtp-in-0201.sea3.amazon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6OFYgan002844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:34:48 GMT
Received: from EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.30]) by ex-hub-4101.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.22]) with mapi; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:34:43 -0700
From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:34:41 -0700
Thread-Topic: RFC 3282: should we revise it?
Thread-Index: AcoMdENN7lp3ZvvGSoSS62zj+65lPw==
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:38:13 -0000

The one bit of language tagging infrastructure that we have not revised since this whole body of work has started is RFC 3282, which defines Content-Language and Accept-Language. This morning I had cause to want to reference it, but a desire not to (since it depends on 3066 rather than the current-and-future BCP 47). I'm pretty sure that the whole machinery of a WG is not needed to revise this document--I'm thinking it would make a suitable individual submission. But I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone had thoughts about whether it were necessary, whether this list would make a suitable place to solicit comments, and whether anyone thought a WG charter were necessary for same (this last I studiously hope is not the case).

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email