Status of RFC 4645bis

Since posting draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-02, the only comments I've 
received about the draft or its proposed contents (other than the hex 
NCRs, which are an RFC 4646bis issue) were from Debbie, who mentioned 
some minor wording changes that I'm waiting for specifics on.

Does this mean everyone loves the draft and feels it's about ready to 
go?  The ISO 639-3 folks have been updating their data files in response 
to the issues I raised, and apparently the standard is ready to be 
published, possibly by the end of this month, so I'd like to prepare a 
draft-03 that would be ready for WG Last Call.  Please send any 
comments.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Progress

ISO is reporting that ISO 639-3 has been published [1] and the ISO 639-3 
Web site has been edited [2] and files renamed to remove the "FDIS" 
qualifier throughout.

This removes our last external obstacle to moving RFC 4646bis and 
4645bis forward.  Our goals were to submit these documents for IETF Last 
Call by the end of January, provided that ISO 639-3 had been published 
(the charter actually says "fully approved," which is surely implied by 
publication).  As Mark might put it, it is now the 39th of January and 
we need to get moving if we are going to make the deadline.

I have received no detailed comments on changes to be made in RFC 
4645bis, and will be completely ready to go in a day or so with a 
draft-02, intended for WG LC, that uses the (apparently final) 639-3 
download tables.  However, I don't think I'm supposed to do this unless 
4646bis is ready for WG LC as well (partly because of the lingering 
hex-NCRs question).  Maybe there is some other reason we should be 
waiting and not taking action to move these documents forward, but I 
can't think of any.

[1] 
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CombinedQueryResult.CombinedQueryResult?queryString=639
[2] http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Re: Progress

Last Call: draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib (Language Tag MIB) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:

- 'Language Tag MIB '
   <draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally, 
comments may be sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib-01.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15469&rfc_flag=0

RE: Progress

Re: Progress

Peter Constable wrote:

> I can think of another reason: ISO Central Secretariat completed 
> publication faster than we expected: we thought they’d take a few 
> weeks but they posted it the very next day. We still have some details 
> in the code table wrt what to do with certain 639-2 entries that we’re 
> sorting out. Now we have an unfortunate quandary: because of the ISO 
> announcement, the downloadable data files can be considered published 
> even though there may be a few things in there that are not ideal 
> meaning we’d be stuck with them. I wish we could clear those up before 
> they got incorporated into a 4645bis draft.

I can delay the draft as long as necessary so you can get the changes 
in.  It looks like that's going to happen anyway.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Re: Progress

Doug Ewell wrote:

> I can delay the draft as long as necessary so you can get the changes
> in.  It looks like that's going to happen anyway.

If you or Peter like to get a plausibility check based on my registry
to XML to validator.w3 approach you could publish the actual state
anyway (as I-D or proto-registry file).  Of course you can also do
that directly with the gawk script.

For 4646bis I think we're still far from ready, there were tons of
editorial details (including stuff about the review list operation).

But that's not directly related to your part unless we find that the
only way to get the missing Suppress-Scripts right for the pre-639-3
languages is to do it "here" (in 4645bis).

Frank

Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib (Language Tag MIB) to Proposed Standard

The IESG <iesg dash secretary at ietf dot org> wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to 
> consider the following document:
>
> - 'Language Tag MIB '
>   <draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document defines a profile of RFC 4646 language tags for use in a 
particular application, by restricting the tags to lowercase and no more 
than 60 characters in length.

There is a recommended casing convention described in RFC 4646, section 
2.1 (e.g. "hmn-Latn-LA"), but tags are not intended to be 
case-sensitive, and applications such as this one may choose a different 
convention if it suits them.

Section 4.3 of RFC 4646 discusses tag length limitations and suggests a 
minimum length limit of 42 characters.  The proposed limit of 60 
characters in the I-D is greater than that minimum, and much greater 
than the likely maximum length of any non-private-use tag, and should 
pose no problem.

Since tags of 1 character are never well-formed, I suggest that the 
definition:

   SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..60))

be amended to exclude the 1-character case.  I assume that a zero-length 
tag, while also not defined in RFC 4646, was included in the I-D to 
allow the special case of "no tag."

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib (Language Tag MIB) to Proposed Standard

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> Since tags of 1 character are never well-formed, I suggest that the 
> definition:
> 
>   SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..60))
> 
> be amended to exclude the 1-character case.  I assume that a zero-length 
> tag, while also not defined in RFC 4646, was included in the I-D to 
> allow the special case of "no tag."

AFAIK, ASN.1 does not allow sizes like (0, 2..60).  I wouldn't even
bother with this change.

--

-- 
John Cowan    cowan <at> ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Rather than making ill-conceived suggestions for improvement based on
uninformed guesses about established conventions in a field of study with
which familiarity is limited, it is sometimes better to stick to merely
observing the usage and listening to the explanations offered, inserting
only questions as needed to fill in gaps in understanding. --Peter Constable

Re: Progress

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> If you or Peter like to get a plausibility check based on my registry 
> to XML to validator.w3 approach you could publish the actual state 
> anyway (as I-D or proto-registry file).  Of course you can also do 
> that directly with the gawk script.

If anyone would like to try this:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01.txt
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01.txt
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01.html

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages