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

[Doug Ewell]

Phillips, Addison wrote:

> Did you mean “the sensible choice is to remove the PV field”? That’s 
> what your email implies, but not what your last sentence says.

No, Peter had written:

>> However, the change from A [keeping the P-V] to B [removing the P-V] 
>> does have an impact on canonicalization that can change the behaviour 
>> of implementations using it. There is no benefit to that behaviour 
>> change; it is likely detrimental.
>>
>> Hence, it seems the sensible choice is not to remove the PV field for 
>> YU, but to add comments (not in LTRU process) to the CS and YU 
>> records.

That sounds to me as if Peter supports both keeping the Preferred-Value 
of CS *and* adding a comment, as yet unspecified.  (There is already a 
comment attached to CS, so I don't know what more is needed.  Are we now 
proposing to add a comment to subtag B to say that subtag A has a 
Preferred-Value of B?)

--
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  ˆ