New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

[ned.freed at mrochek.com]

> > I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some
> > total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change).

> Earlier feedback would have been had if there had been
> some announcement of the proposed considerable changes
> on the ietf-822 mailing list, or via an IETF WG
> charter.

This sort of thing is exactly why we last call non-WG documents for four weeks
rather than two. Less review is assumed to have occured and this may well mean
the document is in some sense "less done".

So, while I know of no problems caused by inordinantly long language tags, now
that the issue has been brought up using this opportunity to add a max length
restriction seems like a very reasonable thing to do.

> > However, we
> > got considerable pushback on having RFC 3066bis make any previously valid
> > RFC3066 tag be invalid

> Entirely appropriate.  And the proposed draft would
> invalidate the meaning of the valid RFC 3066 language
> tag "sr-CS", which is currently in use.

> > and any length restriction would do that.

> If it makes you happy, you can exclude private-use
> tags from an explicit limit.

I would only suggest doing this if it helps us reach consensus.

				Ned