Proposal to remove Preferred-Value field for region YU in LTRU
randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Mon Feb 23 07:26:36 CET 2009
> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:11 PM
> Subject: 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
> > (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.
Syntactically, of course. The question is one of policy and consistency
within the ltru group. Decisions like "this subtag requires additional
commentary" are properly left to ietf-languages at iana.org, unless we can
make (and live by) a statement about why a particular bit of commentary
was added there.
> > 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
No, the issue (#22 on the ltru tracker) is whether to revert a change
made to the 4645bis draft. The consensus here is clearly to *not*
do so. The question some seem to be raising here is whether to start adding
comments for these cases where we are simply following the 4646bis procedures
for Preferred-value. I'd rather *not* go there, unless someone specifically
makes a request to do so on the ltru list.
> 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.
Agreed. Let's please move any further discussion of this back to ltru at ietf.org.
More information about the Ietf-languages