Re: [Ltru] Re: Solving the UTF-8 problem

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Fri, 06 July 2007 02:50 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 1I6du4-0002Yp-E9; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:50:40 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I6du3-0002Yk-LC for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:50:39 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6du3-0002Yc-7F for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:50:39 -0400
Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6du3-0000BO-0l for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:50:39 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=GnMryg1+5K8Vzl6mJY7PjbEYt4gX59nwT/+VDgK3RldfUE83cy+fIzVQpFYZF1EI; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [66.167.78.157] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1I6dtW-0002JO-Bt for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:50:06 -0400
Message-ID: <001d01c7bf78$77fd05c0$6601a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <20070703152848.GB27970@mercury.ccil.org> <004001c7bd9a$6a40e6c0$6601a8c0@oemcomputer> <20070706000341.GA17436@mercury.ccil.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Solving the UTF-8 problem
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:50:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888fa44b31bb60a9356e0a9ca37f0b2e2cd0eb6172c73db07e7350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 66.167.78.157
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
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

Hi -

As a technical contributor:

> From: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Solving the UTF-8 problem
>

> Randy Presuhn scripsit:
> 
> > This argument is only meaningful for the format we use to discuss
> > changes to the registry content.  It has no bearing on the format of
> > the registry itself.
> 
> That is only so if we have some means other than email for communicating
> with IANA.
...

No.  The format of the email discussion does not need to be the same as
the format of the registry itself.  That is a simplifying, but not necessary,
assumption.  The email discussion only needs to contain information that
could be used to generate the necessary changes.  Though I wouldn't want
to make unnecessary work for IANA, I also think that they are quite capable
of operations more sophisticated than mere cut-and-paste.

The current situation is, in my opinion, a result of over-specification of the
interface between the reviewer and IANA.

Randy



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