Subject: [Ltru] Draft-01 of initial registry now up

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:14:40 -0700

A new editor's copy of draft-ietf-ltru-initial-01 is now available:

http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-01.txt
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-01.html
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-01.xml

This version adds the section from the registry draft, explaining how
the contents are determined, and corrects the problem with the
de-??-1901 and -1996 tags being mis-classified.

It does not add es-419 as a redundant tag, since that has not been
approved by IANA yet, nor does it add region subtags 034 and 143 nor
delete region subtag 062, since that issue is still unresolved.

This has not yet been submitted to IANA, of course.

All constructive comments are welcome.  I'd especially like to know how
WG members feel about Section 2: whether the wording makes sense in this
context, whether the references seem right, and whether the registry
contents in Section 3 do in fact follow the rules.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 02:03:43 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> nor does it add region subtags 034 and 143 nor delete region
> subtag 062, since that issue is still unresolved.

Hi Randy, could you please state that we want 034 and 143 IN
and 062 OUT.

> I'd especially like to know how WG members feel about Section
> 2: whether the wording makes sense in this context

You can't say "the editor MUST" while talking with yourself.
How about:  "The editor of the initial registry used" etc.

You could also replace s/is/was/, s/are/were/ etc. describing
what you've done.

In the UN M.49 section get rid of all MAY, MUST, and MUST NOT,
these keywords are unnecessary and undefined in your memo.

Proposed text:

  Actual UN numeric codes assigned to "macro-geographical
  (continental)" regions were added to the IANA registry and
  thereby made valid for use in language tags.

Note added "Actual", the added "regions", and s/MAY be/were/

  The UN numeric codes for "economic groupings" or "other
  groupings," and the alphanumeric codes in Appendix X of the
  UN document, were not added to the registry.

Here it's s/MUST NOT be/were not/

  The UN numeric codes for countries or areas not associated with
  an assigned ISO 3166 alpha-2 code were not added to the initial
  version of the registry.

Dito.  Then delete the following statement, there should be no
registration rules in the initial registry:

- These values MAY be requested for registration by individuals
- using the process defined in [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] and
- according to the rules described therein.

  Items withdrawn, vacated, deprecated, modified, or otherwise
  judged by the LTRU working group to be questionable were omitted
  from the initial registry.

Again s/MAY be/were/, then delete the next statement:

- Those selected for inclusion MUST be added to the initial
- registry.

Yes, you added the selected codes, ready,  The next statements
are apparently wrong, please delete them if that's the case:

- Any codes that remain were listed in a separate section of the initial
- registry draft, indicating that these codes are valid for registration
- using the process in [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] but were not included
- initially.  Listing of these codes in this section is no guarantee
- of future registration.

I don't find any "separate" or "this section" in draft -07, let
alone in your initial registry.

[...]
  Such tags were placed in records of type "redundant" in the registry.

Again s/MUST be/were/ - relevant rules belong to the registry
draft and not to the draft registry, you only state the facts,
no rules,

  defined by [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] have corresponding records
  of type "grandfathered"

s/MUST//

  but may have a "Deprecated" and "Preferred-Value" field added
  to them if a subtag assignment or combination of assignments
  renders the tag obsolete.

s/MAY/may/  If you're (almost) sure better say s/MAY// because
the result wasn't determined by a random generator.

  deprecated were maintained as grandfathered entries.

s/MUST be/were/

  entry contains a "Deprecated"

s/MUST contain/contains/

Etc., please get rid of each and every 2119 keyword, just the
facts, no rules.
                 Bye, Frank