I agree with Doug's points and do not see that a reference to 5198 would add specific benefits. Peter -----Original Message----- From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:25 PM To: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #49: Add reference to RFC 5198 (Apps #2) Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote: > RFC 5198 imposes additional constraints. These may be harmless, but > I'm reluctant to endorse technical change this late in the process. > Perhaps those who contributed to the development of RFC 5198 would > care to comment? RFC 5198 actually allows certain things which we do not allow in the Registry--NFC is only a SHOULD in 5198 but a MUST in draft-4646bis, and 5198 allows the bizarre CR NUL sequence which is forbidden in the Registry. So referencing 5198 would still require us to list the additional constraints *we* impose. Section 3.1.1 of the draft already has plenty of external references. The only reason to add a reference to 5198 would be to further increase the number of cross-references between RFCs, or to effect a technical change for some unspecified reason. I oppose this change. -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 (listed in Acknowledgments section of 5198) http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.