Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050724230241.04da7a40@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:05:45 +0200
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Action items on draft-initial?
In-Reply-To: <003f01c59091$49b6c6a0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <003f01c59091$49b6c6a0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 22:50 24/07/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>I don't see any open tickets for draft-initial, but I'm pretty sure
>there was an emerging hum to change the references so that the wording
>matched the official listings in the online ISO catalog:

Yes.

>What about the normative/informative issue?  I don't remember any
>agreement as to whether the source standards whose code elements were
>used in the initial registry should be normative, and as I said, I would
>rather leave that judgment to others.

I thought this was agreed as normative?

I know the imposed constraints, but I cannot see anything else acceptable 
but normative due to the required global stability. How can we deal with 
the transparent support of updates required in the Charter if not 
normative? The Internet community MUST trust its langtags as totally 
conforming with ISO codes. The Draft's imposed constraints irt. a previous 
request to ISO MA before a request to the Registry would not make sense 
otherwise?

Also, our (and other we see emerging) Open Source approaches and coded 
tables libraries will consider ISO codes as normative (but not exclusive). 
If the Draft is not will we not risk conflicts?
jfc  


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru