[Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial registry draft?

[Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

It's not clear to me how one would apply the recommendations of RFC 2277
in this case.  Could you suggest some meaningful text to go in the 
internationalizations considerations section you request?  Unless such text adds
significant technical value to the document, I would argue against making such
a change at this late stage in the process.  Since the only use of the contents
of this document is to initialize the IANA registry, I believe any internationalization
considerations would belong in the registry document, rather than here.

I note that both the abstract and the document text are quite clear that they
are talking about the IANA registry, so I believe the editor faithfully applied the
change I (not Addison, as you write) suggested.

On the issue of ISO 11173 alignment, this issue is OLD and rejected.  Reopening
at this time has not been justified.

Randy, ltru co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: r&d afrac <rd at afrac.org>
Sent: Aug 4, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>, ltru at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Second WG last call on  draft-ietf-ltru-initial-03.txt ends 2005-08-08

No comment on this text which lists typographer related information.

Except that it is not defined by any RFC, that its Informational status 
does not seem to fit with its normative quality (except if the main Draft 
only claims Informational status what would be appropriate, as describing 
an application related group intents). I note that Addison's change in 
abstract to make sure it is only IANA related, has not be copied into the 
text of the document, which still can be ISO 11173 conformant. It has no 
Internationlisation considerations section what is innapropriate as it 
should document why it is not internationalised.

jfc



At 11:11 04/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>I see the announcement for the availability of the revised initial 
>registry draft has
>been sent out.  (Thanks to Doug and to the Secretariat for the quick 
>turnaround!)
>
>We'll have a BRIEF second WG last call on this document, and I'd like to limit
>the scope of this last call to verifying that changes agreed during
>the first WG last call are properly reflected by the text.  (Of course, if 
>anyone
>finds a substantial technical error, we'd like to hear about it now rather 
>than
>waiting for the IETF last call.)  This last call will end Monday, August 
>8.  The
>draft is available at
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-03.txt
>
>I'd like those who take the time to look at this document to post a message,
>either to the ltru WG mailing list or to the co-chairs, indicating that 
>they've
>read it and whether they are OK with it.  We need this information for the
>paperwork we need to submit along with our request to the IESG to consider
>it for publication as an Informational RFC.
>
>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