Proposal to remove Preferred-Value field for region YU in LTRU

[Lang Gérard]

I agree to remove the Preferred-Value field for YU in LTRU.
I also plainly agree with adding the comment contained in 46945bis-09 (2009-02-01), that also gives some useful informations about how to answer to my question about the progressive "narrowing" of (YU, YUG, 890) inside ISO 3166-1.
Cordialement.
Gérard LANG

-----Message d'origine-----
De : ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] De la part de Doug Ewell
Envoyé : lundi 23 février 2009 06:11
À : ietf-languages at iana.org
Objet : Re: Proposal to remove Preferred-Value field for region YU in LTRU

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> Four possible tracks come to mind:
>    (1) don't do the comment
>    (2) add the comment now via a registry request to ietf-languages
         at iana.org
>    (3) add the comment through ltru at ietf.org as a WG last call
         comment
>    (4) add the comment later via a registry request to ietf-languages
         at iana.org after the registry has been updated
>
> (2) doesn't make much sense.
>
> I can say that at least one of the ltru co-chairs would be quite ill- 
> disposed towards adding an issue for (3) at this particular point in 
> time, since, as a matter of consistency, it would require generating 
> other comments for other registry entries. (However, if anyone wants 
> to pursue such a course of action, the place to do it is on the ltru 
> at ietf.org mailing list, not here.)

No action ever requires generating other comments for other entries. 
Comments are always totally optional.

> Consequently, I would suggest that those who think there is good 
> reason to add such comments to the registry wait until the entries 
> that they think will benefit from such commentary have actually been 
> updated.

If you really want to split this operation into two, one for removing the Preferred-Value and the other for adding the comment -- despite John Cowan's observation about sending IANA a replacement Registry which we know we will immediately want to amend -- then I will leave out the comment and let this group decide whether to add it after RFC 4646bis is published.

At least we appear to have achieved consensus on removing the Preferred-Value for 'YU'.  Four participants in favor and none opposed (including the Reviewer, excluding Randy and me) seems fairly decisive.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ^ 

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages