[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Ltru] [psg.com #900] Re: status? last call?



Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> For _valid_ UN numbers at date-B I got the idea, and that
> covers 831..833 for File-Date: 2005-07-05, even 830, tough.
>
> But not 200. the only "200" on their page belongs to 2005.
> 200 is AFAIK also no "valid candidate for registration".
> And it never was, so even a time machine wouldn't help.

OK, if nobody else objects, I agree to remove 200 from Section 4 of
draft-initial-02.

> IANA:  Are we sure that they manage it to extract the real
> registry from your I-D ?  Scott said "assume the worst" or
> similar.
>
> Maybe a short note "remove page headers and three leading
> spaces in all lines of chapter 3, the first line should
> be the File-Date line" helps in the IANA considerations.

I thought this was already clear enough in the introductory text to
Section 3.  I suppose I could add a pointer to that text in the "IANA
Considerations" section.  Actually repeating the text seems quite
unnecessary.

> Some comments like "replaced by ISO code lb" aren't strictly
> necessary, the Prefered-Value: lb is clear.  But no problem.

I completely agree about the sheer uselessness of comments like this,
whose information is wholly duplicated within other fields.  I don't
like them, and didn't want to put them in.  But others seems to like
them.

>> No ISO 3166 codes fall into this category, only UN numeric
>> codes.
>
> That's still wrong in draft -08 (2.2.4 3E).

The fact that (3E) says unassigned UN codes may be registered is wrong,
and inconsistent with Section 3.3 (11), and needs to be fixed.  (This is
my opinion, and subsequent messages showed there is not complete
agreement about this.  More later.)

The fact that (3E) also mentions ISO codes is not much of a problem; it
is not incumbent on draft-registry to reflect the exact contents of
draft-initial (if so, the latter would be unnecessary).  But the rules
would be different:  ISO codes not already included would be
registrable, while UN codes would not.

> Really, it lists all four #1026 codes, why do they want that
> you have a complete chapter about excatly the same four codes ?
> IANA is most probably not interested what we do NOT register.

But readers might be.  It's not a long chapter.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/



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




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.