[Ltru] Factual correction

[co-chair hat off]

It has come to my attention that in my long mail addressing the points
in JFC Morfin's IETF Last Call comments on our matching draft (archived
at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg05013.html),
there was a factual incorrectness.

In the paragraph that read:

   The commenter seems to claim that draft-ietf-ltru-matching conflicts with
   draft-ietf-ltru-registry (here called RFC 3066bis) because the later
   defines well-formed tags while the former does not require well-formed
   tags. The reason for not requiring checking for well-formed tags when
   matching was discussed extensively in the WG. There is a very clear reason:
   requiring this would require to check the IANA language subtag registry,
   potentially for every matching operation, which was considered operationally
   infeasible. It would also be an unnecessary performance punishment for
   those who actually use well-formed tags. In general, non-wellformed
   tags or ranges will simply not match anything, which is just fine.

the sentence that said:

   There is a very clear reason: requiring this would require to check the
   IANA language subtag registry, potentially for every matching operation,
   which was considered operationally infeasible.

was factually wrong. Well-formedness checking does not need online access
to the registry, only one-time access when the checking software is built
to get the list of grandfathered tags. Strictly speaking, not even validation
does require online access to the registry, because validation can be done
with respect to a specific registry date.

The rest of the paragraph, in particular the following three
sentences, are unaffected by this.

   The reason for not requiring checking for well-formed tags when
   matching was discussed extensively in the WG.
   It would also be an unnecessary performance punishment for
   those who actually use well-formed tags. In general, non-wellformed
   tags or ranges will simply not match anything, which is just fine.

I would like to appologize for any confusion this may have created.
I personally do not think there was anything unclear in the draft
(now an RFC), or anything that the WG would have done differently.
My guess is also that this problem would have been spotted very quickly
by quite some WG participants if it hadn't been burried in the middle
of a very long mail answering another very long mail.

Regards,     Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     

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