Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fw: I-D Action:draft-presuhn-rfc2482-historic-00.txt

John C Klensin <> Mon, 14 June 2010 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0C73A698A for <>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.136
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.137, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8e1lIm+PYbhR for <>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EFB3A6984 for <>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=localhost) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1OOGZv-0002BE-MN; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:48:19 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:48:18 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Randy Presuhn <>, SM <>, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
Message-ID: <7FDF6587A865B8C21EA91414@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <00a401cb0bfb$141e0680$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
References: <008501cb0bf3$47072480$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <> <00a401cb0bfb$141e0680$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:51:22 -0700
Cc:, Kenneth Whistler <>,
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fw: I-D Action:draft-presuhn-rfc2482-historic-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:48:26 -0000

--On Monday, June 14, 2010 12:52 -0700 Randy Presuhn
<> wrote:

> Hi -
> Unless my co-authors object, I'll change the intended status
> to "informational" and remove the 2119 material as suggested.

Sigh.  Whatever makes the IESG happy is fine with me.

If I remember the ritual dance, the document explains why the
earlier one was moved to Historic, the actual move is, in
theory, a separate IESG "Protocol Action".  

So Peter and SM are correct.  FWIW, the justification for
identifying it as Standards Track was that things can become
Historic for all sorts of Informational-type reasons.  IMO, if
we want to say not only "that document is Historic" but "Do NOT
Use This", the latter requires a standards-track document and
2119 language.  But, again, I prefer whatever makes the IESG
happy and lets this be processed with minimal waste of
everyone's time.

Use of the LTRU list is ok with me -- the substantive expertise
is probably there-- but remember that this issue arose in
conjunction with an inquiry from the Apps ADs about a "nits"
file and our noticing that Unicode had deprecated the mechanism.
The note went to "apps-discuss"; I don't know what fraction of
the participants in the former LTRU WG follow that list.  

Neither the original posting nor the Unicode deprecation action
have much to do with the specifics of LTRU unless someone in
that WG would propose that the IETF retain this mechanism in
spite of  Unicode's having deprecated it and strongly
discouraged its use.