> 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.
1. 'no' should be deprecated in favor of 'nb'. That is,
one should assume 'nb' if 'no' is used.
'no' is is (now) in theory a language group code, but all
languages in that group have individual codes (nb and nn);
not counting dialects. But effectively, in practice, 'nb'
*replaces* 'no' ('nn' is much rarer than 'nb').
But I guess this can be dealt with later on (I hope I did not
miss any provision preventing such a fix).
2. Will all the "added" dates be changed to that of the date when
the actual registry goes "live"? (As well for the initial value
of the "File-Date".)
3. There is no mention about phasing out the old registry (or
perhaps I missed that), either in -initial or -registry. Is the
old registry to be kept permanently? Or removed at some later
date. An immediate retirement/replacement of the old registry
might not be so good.
/kent k
_______________________________________________
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.