[Ltru] Ltru consensus call: rename 4645bis I-D?

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

Hi -

Our AD has made a request:

> From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> Cc: "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>; "Lisa Dusseault"
<lisa.dusseault at messagingarchitects.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt
>
> Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> > Alexey Melnikov <alexey dot melnikov at isode dot com> wrote:
>
>  [...]
>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > This is a good point.  Technically, I supposed this is not really
> > "4645bis" in the traditional sense.  Rather, it is the accompanying
> > document to 4646bis, in exactly the same way that 4645 was the
> > accompanying document to 4646.
> >
> > The paragraph is correct; 4645bis does not start from zero and apply
> > the 4645 processes, modulo some "bis" changes.  Rather, it starts from
> > the current (post-4645) Registry and applies processes that are
> > similar (but not identical) to those of 4645, against different
> > standards (ISO 639-3 and 639-5).
> >
> > If a change must be made to avoid a DISCUSS, then probably the most
> > sensible change would be to rename the draft.  Listing all the changes
> > from 4645 would be like describing the development of the airplane by
> > starting with a recapitulation of the development of the car.
>
> I would like the WG to reach consensus if the document should be renamed
> or not.
> Personally I would prefer the document to be renamed, as I find the
> whole concept of "this is names as 4645bis, but really isn't" to be
> quite confusing.
> But I can issue IETF LC on the current document, if this is what people
> want.

As co-chair...

The document in question has the file name draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt
If we change the name, we'd need to update 464bis accordingly.  I'm not
sure how the I-D tracker tool would handle a name change at this stage
of the process, but I assume the IESG can cope with it.  The question for
this working group is two-fold:
   (1) Do we want to change the name of the file?
   (2) If so, what do we want the new name to be?

We need to hear from the WG quickly so we can put this issue to rest.

Randy