RE: [Ltru] Last Call Comment: draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt

["Scott Hollenbeck" <sah at 428cobrajet.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn at mindspring.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:41 PM
> To: 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Last Call Comment: draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <sah at 428cobrajet.net>
> > To: "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru at ietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:18 AM
> > Subject: [Ltru] Last Call Comment: draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt
> >
> 
> > Section 2 of draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt describes the 
> criteria used to
> > populate the registry.  Section 4 describes omitted code 
> elements.  I don't
> > see any text to explain *why* the code elements in section 
> 4 were omitted.
> > Which criteria were not met?.  It might be helpful to provide a few
> > sentences to summarize the rationale for the WG's omission 
> decision for the
> > benefit of readers who weren't part of the on-list discussion.
> ...
> 
> Currently, section 4 starts out with:
>    The following code elements from [UN-M.49] were not assigned as
>    subtags in the initial Language Subtag Registry, but are valid
>    candidates for registration as region subtags, using the process in
>    [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry]:
> 
> Here are some suggested replacement words:
>    The following code elements from [UN-M.49] were not associated
>    with [ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code elements.  Consequently, they were
>    not assigned as
>    subtags in the initial Language Subtag Registry, but are valid
>    candidates for registration as region subtags, using the process in
>    [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry]:
> 
> Would this address your concern?

Yes, it would.

-Scott-


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