[Ltru] Fw: AD review of draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

This from our AD.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>; "Mark Davis" <mark at macchiato.com>; "Chris Newman" <Chris.Newman at sun.com>; "Randy
Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; "Addison Phillips" <addison at inter-locale.com>; "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa.dusseault at messagingarchitects.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:10 PM
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt

> Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
> Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>
>> On 2009/04/01 13:33, Mark Davis wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, can someone point me to the tool for viewing the last call status?
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis/
>>
>> Alex, can you give us a hint about when to expect the next steps,
>> or tell us what you need from our side, if anything?
>
> Folks,
> I am on my last day of holidays before returning home.
> I've started reviewing 4645bis few days (and forgot to download
> 4646bis on my laptop), which proved to be problematic.
> I have some comments/questions about 4645bis which I try to summarize
> and send out shortly.

Ok, here is my AD review of 4645bis. Please let me know if you
agree/disagree with various issues I've raised.
Answers to some of my questions might be obvious after I review 4646bis
in details (I've only skimmed it so far). But I am sending my comments
anyway in order to speed up the process.

So far I don't have any issues with the document that I think need to be
fixed before IETF LC. However, I would appreciate a reply to my review
before issuing IETF LC. Also please let me know if you want me to last
call the document as is, or if you would like to update the document to
address my comments first.

General: I hope the WG has discussed "let's remove all registrations
from the document before publication" approach. Personally I would
rather the document contain IANA registrations upon publication.

> 1.  Introduction

 [...]

>    In its initial phase as an Internet-Draft, this memo also contained a
>    complete replacement of the contents of the Language Subtag Registry
>    to be used by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in
>    updating it.  This content was deleted from this memo prior to
>    publication as an RFC.

Is this paragraph useful? If the content is deleted when the updated
RFC  is published, this doesn't give a reader any useful information. If
the content is not deleted when the updated RFC is published, then this
text would be wrong.

I think there is at least one more place where there is a similar  issue.

I've just picked a nearly random registration from the document:

> Type: language
> Subtag: orv
> Description: Old Russian
> Added: 2029-09-09

I am confused here. Why is the "Added" date in the future?

> 6.  Changes
>
>    [RFC EDITOR NOTE: this section is provided for the convenience of
>    reviewers and will be removed from the final document.]
>
>    This memo is a new work, not an incremental update of [RFC4645].  The
>    procedure for populating the original Language Subtag Registry,
>    specified by the earlier [RFC4646], is included by reference to
>    [RFC4645].  Therefore, no changes from [RFC4645] are listed in this
>    section.

I am not sure I understand this comment and I don't think I find it
convincing. At least one of the acting ADs thinks that any XXXXbis draft
must contain "Changes since RFC XXXX" section, which tries to summarize
all major changes. (I.e. the AD would put a DISCUSS on the document
until this is resolved). Personally I find a section listing all changes
to be very useful, but I don't consider lack of it as a blocking issue.

If the document is really not a bis draft, then the draft name is confusing.

Regards,
Alexey