Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
> Need to ensure that the "RFC 3066bis" in the Abstract gets replaced
> with the actual RFC number during the RFC editing process.
Just let me know how to do that. I tried making this a reference to
[I-D.ietf-ltru-registry], but one tool or another didn't like that in
the Abstract.
> "This memo does not define the permanent contents of the registry."
> isn't quite what we need to say. If there's no objection, I suggest
> something like "Since the contents of this memo only serve as a
> starting point for the registry, it is inappropriate to use this memo
> in lieue of the registry."
(s/lieue/lieu/)
I'm not sure I see the practical difference, but I made the change. Do
I need to change the last sentence of the third paragraph of the
Introduction as well?
> The last sentence of section 1 ("The process for determining the
> contents of this registry is defined in Section 3.7 of
> [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].") isn't needed, since that material
> immediately follows.
Right, that was a holdover from the days before the current Section 2
was created.
> (I bet the RFC editor gets rid of the inter-section page breaks. :-)
I had to delete <?rfc compact="yes" ?> so the text in the nested lists
in Section 2 wouldn't come out all jammed together. This had the side
effect of introducing the page breaks between sections. If anyone can
show me a better way to do this, I'd appreciate it.
> "the the" -> "the"
Done.
> "RFC 3066" needs a reference. (informative)
Done, everywhere RFC 3066 is mentioned. The one mention of RFC 1766 was
also turned into a reference. There are now a LOT more references than
before.
I also removed the first hyphen in references like [ISO-639-1], changing
it to [ISO639-1], because that seems to be the convention. I left
[UN-M.49] alone, since it was just too ugly otherwise.
> "This section defines the process used to create the initial registry
> entries." ->
> "This section describes the process that was used to create the
> initial registry entries."
Done.
> "The initial set of records is based on the following standards:" ->
> "The initial set of records was based on the following standards:"
Done, along with similar present/past tense corrections.
> "7. Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that are not deprecated, consist
> entirely of subtags already in this document, and have the
> correct" ->
> "7. Tags in the RFC 3066 registry that were not deprecated, consisted
> entirely of subtags already in that document, and have the
> correct"
No, it's *this* document, the initial registry. The RFC 3066 registry
doesn't have subtags, only whole tags.
> Do we really need this paragraph in this document?
> Any additional registrations completed after the adoption of
> [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] using the rules in RFC 3066 will be
> incorporated into the Language Subtag Registry using the rules
> defined above, or will result in the submission of appropriate
> records by the Language Subtag Reviewer according to the rules in
> [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry].
Addison proposed that text on July 5 to replace "New registrations
completed under RFC 3066 were entered into the ILSR using the rules
defined above." Personally I agree that no text related to ongoing
maintenance of the registry belongs in draft-initial. I've commented
out the above text, not deleted it, in case a battle ensues about
retaining it.
> This paragraph also doesn't belong in this document.
> All existing RFC 3066 language tag registrations will be maintained
> in perpetuity.
> It's about registry maintenance, rather than initialization.
I agree, and have commented this out as well. Actually, I think all of
item 11 from "Interested parties" to the end should be deleted, as it
also pertains to registry maintenance, but I'll wait to hear a humming
sound before I do anything about it.
I have not added any references or explanations regarding the use of
Unicode escape sequences. Section 1 briefly mentions record-jar, but
then defers all other format-related details to [draft-registry].
200 has been expurgated from Section 4.
Draft-initial-02 is now available:
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.html
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.xml
--
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.