Hi Doug, Put me down in favor of uninversion of names.
The first passage indicates that EITHER the inverted form of a name OR the uninverted form must appear as a Description. The second passage speaks of "regularizing" inverted names, which suggests that it is the uninverted name which is used, but does not say so explicitly, and it essentially pushes the problem to RFC 4645bis, which is where it belongs as far as the bulk update is concerned.
I'm not sure that it suggests un-inversion specifically. It just as well suggests (per a long thread on this list) that inversion, when it appears, should be consistent in form/format. Either approach would be correct, but I'm not wild about creating monsters like "Slavonic, Church, Old" or even preserving the current "Slavonic, Old Church".
Addison -- Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ 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.