Fw: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private Use Tags

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

Another message from Jefsey clearly intended for the WG mailing list.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "r&d afrac" <rd at afrac.org>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private Use Tags
>
> On 09:01 13/07/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
> >Hi -
> >
> > > From: "r&d afrac" <rd at afrac.org>
> > > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working
> > Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe)
> > Private Use Tags
> > >
> > > At 22:28 09/07/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > > >Hi -
> > > > > From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
> > > > > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:00 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private
> > > > Use Tags
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > In the interest of achieving consensus, I won't argue further about the
> > > > > exact wording of this section.  I do insist that private-use tags and
> > > > > subtags in "x-" not be removed from the grammar, or proscribed
> > entirely.
> > > > > It MUST be legal for consenting adults to generate and interpret
> > > > > "x-this" and "en-x-that" in the privacy of their homes.
> > > >...
> > > >
> > > >I think we're all agreed on that.  Based on the discussion, I'll leave
> > it to
> > > >the editors to pick appropriate words to reflect our rough consensus that
> > > >private use tags and subtags should remain in the document, but there
> > should
> > > >be a "health warning" regarding the risks associated with using
> > them.  Several
> > > >alternative wordings have been offered, and I think the feedback on the
> > > >mailing
> > > >list will provide sufficient guidance to the editors to form text we
> > can live
> > > >with.
> > >
> > > I am obliged to come back on this. If the editors are to form a text we can
> > > live with, I think we also could. And if cannot, we should make clear in a
> > > note, or through a consensus of this group, that it has never been
> > > considered that "x-" tags could ever have to do with pornography (or
> > > exclusion as some of comments I received during the ICANN meeting).
> > >
> > > >With that, I'll mark this issue resolved.  If someone finds the words they
> > > >choose unacceptable, we can re-open the issue.
> > >
> > > I reopen the issue, not necessarily on the text itself but about the
> > > guidance given to the editor.
> > > jfc
> >
> >If you really believe issue #1061 needs to be re-opened,
> >please identify the specific text in the draft you object to and
> >the text you would propose in its place.
>
> "The use of "x-" has no particular meaning regarding the nature of the
> private subtags."
> or
> "The use of "x-" is to introduce the private extension of the format. It
> may in particular be used for multilingual or punycoded subtags."
>
> The Alpha8 is discreminatory against internationalised subtags, as punycode
> can imply punycoded string of different length for internationalised
> strings of similar length.
> jfc
>
>
> >Randy, ltru co-chair
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ltru mailing list
> >Ltru at lists.ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>




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