Thanks, Randy, lots of info here. Should I thus assume that you want the documents brought to the IESG for evaluation at the next opportunity? The next available telechat is 13 October. -Scott- > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn at mindspring.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:09 AM > To: Scott Hollenbeck > Cc: LTRU Working Group > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Summary of IETF last call issues on ltru > registry drafts > > Hi Scott - > > > From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <sah at 428cobrajet.net> > > To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; > "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru at ietf.org> > > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:25 PM > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Summary of IETF last call issues on > ltru registry drafts > ... > > Randy, we do need to produce a short list of last call > comments that were > > repeats from the working group reviews. That list will > help the IESG > > better understand which issues were addressed by the group > prior to the last > > call and those which were newly identified during the last call. > > > > -Scott- > > In order to summarise the issues brought up on the IETF mailing list > during the IETF last call, I've organized them by issue > tracker number, > since many of them were issues that had already been discussed by > the ltru working group. To see the details in the issue tracker, > go to https://rt.psg.com/ (user and password "ietf"). > > After each issue number is the brief description of the issue, > whether it was "resolved" or "rejected", the list of URLs in > which it advocated in the IETF last call, and, if necessary, > commentary. I didn't in general track down all the follow-ups > or refutation; these can be found easily by following the message > threads. > > The message references are from the ietf at ietf.org list, with dates > between 2005-08-23 (the start of the IETF last call) and 2005-09-06 > (the end of the IETF last call) > > Also included here are issues that were brought directly to us, such > as though from the GenART review. All numbered issues that > were raised during the IETF last call are marked with the string > "IETF/LC", ones that came up during the working group call > have the string "WGLC". > > There were a couple of items with no number assigned. > (a) registry syntax should depend on completion of matching document > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37240.ht > ml (Bruce Lilly) > (I raised this question during the negotiation of milestones for > the initial charter of the WG, and this is why I insisted that > an initial version of the matching draft be up for discussion > before we considered issuing working group last call on the > registry document. (personal communication to co-chair and ADs)) > However, related issues were discussed at some length in several > threads, including: > 973 remove material that should be in matching draft resolved > 999 order of subtags resolved > 1000 add Suppress-Script field resolved > > (b) add a date subtag > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37275.html > (No one seems to have taken this seriously.) > > (c) separate script tagging from language tagging > Although the charter arguably precludes this, this is > closely related to > the discussion of issue #999, order of subtags (resolved) > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37240.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37354.html > (Note: Bruce Lilly's i-d on the notion of *completely* > separating script > from language identification was discussed at some length on > the ltru mailing > list starting April 12, 2005, but received little support due > to compatibility > issues with existing protocols. See the responses > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37299.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37315.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37360.html > In part, I believe, the thinking has been that negotiation algorithms > belonged to the applications and protocols that use language tags, > and as such would not belong in the BCP-to-be. > Note that this question is also touched on in > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37468.html ) > > > Issues on the registry draft > (internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt): > > 890 include character set information in tags rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37314.html > > 892 instructions for IANA if registry becomes "too large" rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37222.html > > 893 support incremental updates of registry shadows rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37222.html > > 945 use "." to separate subtags rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html > > 946 use of both length and position to identify subtag > problematic rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html > > 965 expectation of support for automated reading of registry rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37222.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37230.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html > > 966 remove something from security considerations rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37102.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37135.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html > > 968 load on IANA server by applications resolved > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37222.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37227.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37230.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > > 1007 future-proofing wrt anticipated ISO 639-6 resolved > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > > 1016 restrict the maximum number of extlang subtags to five resolved > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html > > 1027 apply ISO 11179 (metadata registry framework) rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37208.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37257.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37275.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37280.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37337.html > > 1033 Written Spoken Signed rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37102.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37275.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37285.html > > 1067 WGLC Further clarify distinction between locale codes > and language tags resolved > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37255.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html > > 1070 WGLC addendum to introduction rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > > 1073 WGLC add IANA adaptation of "UN disclaimer" rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > > 1072 WGLC compatibility principles resolved > 1092 WGLC treat 0- as escape from syntax rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37088.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37101.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37208.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37255.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37256.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37257.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37280.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37285.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37286.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37314.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37337.html > > 1107 IETF/LC Transition rules (gen-art 1) resolved > > 1108 IETF/LC Recall of the LSR (gen-art 2) resolved > > 1109 IETF/LC case canonicalization in registry (gen-art 3) resolved > > 1110 IETF/LC define the LSR (gen-art 4) resolved > > 1111 IETF/LC documenting the update load (gen-art 5) rejected > > 1112 IETF/LC various casing issues (gen-art 7) rejected > > 1113 IETF/LC UN economic groupings (gen-art 8) rejected > > 1114 IETF/LC define the LSR (gen-art 9) resolved > > 1115 IETF/LC numeric ranges in the registry (gen-art 11) resolved > > 1116 IETF/LC maintain registration records for every single > subtag (gen-art 10) resolved > > 1117 IETF/LC include 'grandfathered' ANBF in 'Tag' > description (gen-art 12) resolved > > 1118 IETF/LC remove MUST from capitalization in registry > requirements (gen-art 14) rejected > > 1119 IETF/LC give ABNF for Prefix (gen-art 15) rejected > > 1120 IETF/LC ungarble description of Preferred-Value > (gen-art 16a) resolved > > 1121 IETF/LC case of the subtag in a registration (gen-art > 16b) resolved > > 1122 IETF/LC what happens when GF tag and new registration > with different meaning collide (gen-art 17a) resolved > > 1123 IETF/LC make hypothetical nature of extlang > registrations clear (gen-art 17b) resolved > > 1124 IETF/LC At least one prefix for variant (gen-art 18) resolved > > 1125 IETF/LC bad GF sentence in S3.2 resolved > > 1126 IETF/LC another GF text problem resolved > > 1127 IETF/LC choice of subtags in multilingual documents > (gen-art 19) rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37237.html > > 1128 IETF/LC clarifying what a redundant tag is (gen-art 20) resolved > > 1129 IETF/LC frowning on long texts (gen-art #21) resolved > > 1134 AD-eval: add "obsoletes 3066" resolved > > 1135 IETF/LC something other than BCP? resolved > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37088.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37090.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37101.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37240.ht > ml (Bruce Lilly) > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37468.ht > ml (John Klensin) > Note that the final resolution of John's comments, as worked out on > the ltru WG mailing list, will result in the "gutting upon > publication" > of the initial registry document. > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37484.ht > ml (John Klensin) > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37485.ht > ml (Joel Halpern) > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37493.ht > ml (Frank Ellerman) > > 1136 IETF/LC add singleton for tag URIs rejected > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37088.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37102.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37135.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37208.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37255.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37275.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37280.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37285.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37314.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37337.html > > > Issues on initial registry: > > 1130 IETF/LC remove rules in section 2 duplicated from > registry draft rejected > > 1131 IETF/LC update entry for zh-guoyu rejected > > --------------------------- > Randy > > > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.