Re: [Ltru] Last open item

Mark Davis asks rhetorically:

> If we do B1 or B2, we needlessly deviate from ISO, and are forced into using
> an new, non-ISO code for something that is perfectly reasonable. Why is this
> a good idea?

I agree: it is not a good idea.  We should restore the original tag as the
preferred value in such cases.

> As to the recursion, although it wouldn't apply in this case if we allow A,
> it does in other cases. And resolving the recursion for the user in the
> registry just prevents needless mistakes.

+1.  The only arguments I can see against doing the recursion for the user
are:

1) Too much risk of error; but we have plenty of vigilant eyes in ietf-languages.

2) The ability to reconstruct the registry as of a given point in time is lost;
but Doug Ewell has argued that this ability does not exist anyhow.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru