[hats on] I declare consensus on the fact that we do not want to remove the MAY,but are considering the clarification of the text. Please help converging on a version of the text that is clearer than the original, but doesn't change its meaning.
[Randy, this doesn't close this issue yet]Please say whether you are okay with the new text proposed at the end of this mail.
On 2009/06/11 1:35, Mark Davis wrote:
Although going in the right direction, I don't think it quite hits the mark, since it is still talking about "the community", which is not defined and has no other status in the document. It also gives no sense of who is doing what. I have suggested language below, plus the other formulations for comparison. Mark: The Description field MAY be modified, and is thus not guaranteed to be stable. However, modifications are discouraged because of the negative impact on the provisions in Section 3.4 (Stability of IANA Registry Entries). Therefore the Language Subtag Reviewer SHOULD accept only modifications for errata corrections or required clarifications of intent, and SHOULD NOT accept translations or transcriptions of entries in the registry.
This text introduces two new shoulds where we only had a MAY, unrelated to the comment. This is clearly inappropriate at this stage of the process.
OLDWhile the 'Description' field itself is not guaranteed to be stable and errata corrections MAY be undertaken from time to time, 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.
Peter: 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.
I agree with Mark that 'community' isn't well defined. But it was in our original text, so we can leave it in. However, Peter's text doubles it. I propose removing the first one. I also re-added the quotes to 'Description', split a sentence, removed " or clarifications of intent" (well intended, but not in the original text), and changed the 'might' to 'are' ("errata might be acceptable" sounds as if some errata are not acceptable, which I would have difficulties understanding). The new text I'm proposing is:
NEW text:The 'Description' field MAY be modified. Modifications for errata corrections or clarifications of intent are considered acceptable. However, 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. Note that, since modifications are possible, the Description field is not guaranteed to be stable.
Please say whether you are okay with the new text or want some additional changes. If you propose additional changes, please include your full new text after motivating the changes. If you propose changes, please try to stay as close as possible to the text and intent of the original text.
Regards, Martin. -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.