To: <ltru at ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 13:58 Subject: Ltru Digest, Vol 52, Issue 43
If you have received this digest without all the individual message attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list subscription. To do so, go to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. Send Ltru mailing list submissions to ltru at ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ltru-request at ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at ltru-owner at ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ltru digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) (Randy Presuhn) 2. Re: Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) (Phillips, Addison) 3. Re: Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) (Kent Karlsson) 4. Re: Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) (Peter Constable) 5. Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a) (Alexey Melnikov) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:03:58 -0700 From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org> Message-ID: <001901c9eac7$60915ae0$6801a8c0 at oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi - As a technical contributor...From: "Martin J. D?rst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:36 AMSubject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)[co-chair hat on] Hello Randy,(I would personally have been fine with keeping the text as is, and youprobably overlooked that part of my message, but) I have already declared that we have consensus that we should improve the wording(without changing the substance), because we think that the comment wasbased (to some extent) on misunderstanding. If you think that I judged that consensus wrongly, please say so, so that we can reopen discussion on that part.No, there seem to be plenty of people who want to spend time fine-tuningthe wording, so I think you called the consensus correctly.If you think that moving issue resolution forward by declaring consensuson some part of an issue and then continue to resolve the remaining parts of the issue is procedurally inappropriate, please say so.No, although I find it quite a stretch to read this "misunderstanding"into the reviewer's comment, which read: | Reason: use of MAY is not an appropriate use of RFC 2119, as it is | trying to forecast the future and doesn't specify a protocol option.Otherwise, please help us concentrate on the issues (and subissues) currently being discussed, so that we can move forward as quickly as possible.... Of course. The substance of my comment is that I find the recently word-smithed text no better than the original. If we must change it,I'd prefer something like this, which would also (incidentally) addressthe reviewer's comment: The 'Description' field is not guaranteed to be stable. Corrections and clarifications of intent are examples of possible changes. However, attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of entries (which by definition provide no new information) are unlikely to be approved. I think the existing statement "as changes of this nature have an impact on the provisions in Section 3.4" is simply incorrect, and *if* we're going to open up this paragraph, that text should be stricken. Randy ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:13:40 -0700 From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org> Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01A8A4702D at EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" (editor hat OFF)I prefer Randy's text to that in the draft. Any objection to putting it in place and then submitting the results??Addison 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 Randy Presuhn Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:04 PM To: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) Hi - As a technical contributor... > From: "Martin J. D?rst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> > Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:36 AM > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) > > [co-chair hat on] > > Hello Randy, > > (I would personally have been fine with keeping the text as is, and you > probably overlooked that part of my message, but) I have already > declared that we have consensus that we should improve the wording > (without changing the substance), because we think that the comment was > based (to some extent) on misunderstanding. > > If you think that I judged that consensus wrongly, please say so, so > that we can reopen discussion on that part. No, there seem to be plenty of people who want to spend time fine- tuning the wording, so I think you called the consensus correctly. > If you think that moving issue resolution forward by declaring consensus > on some part of an issue and then continue to resolve the remaining > parts of the issue is procedurally inappropriate, please say so. No, although I find it quite a stretch to read this "misunderstanding" into the reviewer's comment, which read: | Reason: use of MAY is not an appropriate use of RFC 2119, as it is | trying to forecast the future and doesn't specify a protocol option. > Otherwise, please help us concentrate on the issues (and subissues) > currently being discussed, so that we can move forward as quickly as > possible. ... Of course. The substance of my comment is that I find the recently word-smithed text no better than the original. If we must change it, I'd prefer something like this, which would also (incidentally) address the reviewer's comment: The 'Description' field is not guaranteed to be stable. Corrections and clarifications of intent are examples of possible changes. However, attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of entries (which by definition provide no new information) are unlikely to be approved. I think the existing statement "as changes of this nature have an impact on the provisions in Section 3.4" is simply incorrect, and *if* we're going to open up this paragraph, that text should be stricken. Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:23:21 +0200 From: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com>, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org> Message-ID: <C6572649.DAE3%kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" +1 The intent of the MAY, which is omitted in Randy's text, is covered in section 3.4 point 3. /kent k Den 2009-06-11 21.13, skrev "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com>:(editor hat OFF)I prefer Randy's text to that in the draft. Any objection to putting it inplace and then submitting the results?? Addison 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 Randy Presuhn Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:04 PM To: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) Hi - As a technical contributor...From: "Martin J. D?rst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 onDescription errata(Apps #13)[co-chair hat on] Hello Randy, (I would personally have been fine with keeping the text as is,and youprobably overlooked that part of my message, but) I have already declared that we have consensus that we should improve thewording(without changing the substance), because we think that thecomment wasbased (to some extent) on misunderstanding. If you think that I judged that consensus wrongly, please say so,sothat we can reopen discussion on that part.No, there seem to be plenty of people who want to spend time fine- tuning the wording, so I think you called the consensus correctly.If you think that moving issue resolution forward by declaringconsensuson some part of an issue and then continue to resolve theremainingparts of the issue is procedurally inappropriate, please say so.No, although I find it quite a stretch to read this "misunderstanding" into the reviewer's comment, which read: | Reason: use of MAY is not an appropriate use of RFC 2119, as it is | trying to forecast the future and doesn't specify a protocol option.Otherwise, please help us concentrate on the issues (andsubissues)currently being discussed, so that we can move forward as quicklyaspossible.... Of course. The substance of my comment is that I find the recently word-smithed text no better than the original. If we must change it, I'd prefer something like this, which would also (incidentally) address the reviewer's comment: The 'Description' field is not guaranteed to be stable. Corrections and clarifications of intent are examples of possible changes. However, attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of entries (which by definition provide no new information) are unlikely to be approved. I think the existing statement "as changes of this nature have an impact on the provisions in Section 3.4" is simply incorrect, and *if* we're going to open up this paragraph, that text should be stricken. Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru_______________________________________________Ltru mailinglistLtru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:47:14 -0700 From: Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com>, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org> Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB8357956B06D614AD at NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I'm OK with Randy's text. Peter -----Original Message-----From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillips, AddisonSent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:14 PM To: Randy Presuhn; LTRU Working GroupSubject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)(editor hat OFF)I prefer Randy's text to that in the draft. Any objection to putting it in place and then submitting the results??Addison 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 Randy Presuhn Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:04 PM To: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) Hi - As a technical contributor... > From: "Martin J. D?rst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> > Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:36 AM > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13) > > [co-chair hat on] > > Hello Randy, > > (I would personally have been fine with keeping the text as is, and you > probably overlooked that part of my message, but) I have already > declared that we have consensus that we should improve the wording > (without changing the substance), because we think that the comment was > based (to some extent) on misunderstanding. > > If you think that I judged that consensus wrongly, please say so, so > that we can reopen discussion on that part. No, there seem to be plenty of people who want to spend time fine- tuning the wording, so I think you called the consensus correctly. > If you think that moving issue resolution forward by declaring consensus > on some part of an issue and then continue to resolve the remaining > parts of the issue is procedurally inappropriate, please say so. No, although I find it quite a stretch to read this "misunderstanding" into the reviewer's comment, which read: | Reason: use of MAY is not an appropriate use of RFC 2119, as it is | trying to forecast the future and doesn't specify a protocol option. > Otherwise, please help us concentrate on the issues (and subissues) > currently being discussed, so that we can move forward as quickly as > possible. ... Of course. The substance of my comment is that I find the recently word-smithed text no better than the original. If we must change it, I'd prefer something like this, which would also (incidentally) address the reviewer's comment: The 'Description' field is not guaranteed to be stable. Corrections and clarifications of intent are examples of possible changes. However, attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of entries (which by definition provide no new information) are unlikely to be approved. I think the existing statement "as changes of this nature have an impact on the provisions in Section 3.4" is simply incorrect, and *if* we're going to open up this paragraph, that text should be stricken. Randy _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:58:14 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com> Subject: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a) To: ltru at ietf.org Message-ID: <4A3161D6.4010202 at isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I am not entirely happy with the resolution "wantfix" for this one, asthis is a typical case of what can bring a DISCUSS from other IESG members.So let me try to suggest a specific text. OLD: At the time this document was created, there were no examples of this kind of subtag and future registrations of this type are discouraged: primary languages are strongly RECOMMENDED for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ registration with ISO 639, and proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer before they are registered with IANA. NEW: At the time this document was created, there were no examples of this kind of subtag and future registrations of this type are discouraged: an attempt to register a primary language MUST be ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ made to ISO 639, and proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer before they are registered with IANA.I.e. the discussion about what the Language Tag Reviewer is going to dois not the point of this issue. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru End of Ltru Digest, Vol 52, Issue 43 ************************************
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.