Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)

[Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>]

In that case, might it make sense to consider the change I suggested?

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:12 AM
To: "Martin J. Dürst"; Kent Karlsson
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)

I oppose the change because I consider the comment a misreading. Perhaps the sentence should be split into several separate sentences in order to separate normative from informative. However, the MAY keyword is there specifically to allow errata corrections (a problem that was raised during the development of this document).

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of "Martin J. Dürst"
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:02 AM
> To: Kent Karlsson
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on
> Description errata(Apps #13)
> 
> [hats on]
> 
> I currently have Kent, Randy, Peter, and myself down as against
> changes
> on this issue. There are also some eventuality proposals for new
> text,
> but these are currently not relevant. Please express your
> preference
> (and the reasons for it) if you haven't already done so. If you
> have
> expressed your opinion, but I haven't considered it, please also
> say so.
> 
> Unless somebody expresses a preference (and reason) for making a
> change,
> I'll declare consensus on this issue tomorrow my morning.
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> 
> On 2009/06/10 1:54, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > I agree.
> >
> >      /kent k
> >
> > Den 2009-06-09 18.35, skrev "Peter
> Constable"<petercon at microsoft.com>:
> >
> >> I also don't think a change is necessary.
> >>
> >> I agree with Randy: this use of MAY is indicating an optional
> activity that
> >> must be anticipated by implementations. I think the wording
> could be better;
> >> e.g. something along this line:
> >>
> >> "The Description field MAY be modified. Modifications for errata
> corrections
> >> or clarifications of intent might be considered acceptable by
> the community,
> >> but attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of
> entries in the
> >> registry itself will probably be frowned upon by the community
> or rejected
> >> outright, as changes of this nature have an impact on the
> provisions in
> >> Section 3.4 (Stability of IANA Registry Entries). Note that,
> since
> >> modifications are possible, the Description field is not
> guaranteed to be
> >> stable."
> >>
> >>
> >> A change to the text I've given here would be editorial, not
> technical, in
> >> nature. I don't consider it necessary or highly important, but
> would be open
> >> to that change should the editors be so inclined.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> >
> 
> --
> #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru