[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    RE: Last Call: Tags for the Identification of Languages to BCP
From:       "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt () OpenLDAP ! org>
Date:       2000-10-22 15:35:22
[Download RAW message or body]

At 03:52 PM 10/22/00 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> What turned out in practice was that the most important part of RFC 1766 was the \
> registration procedure, including the references to authoritative sources of tags \
> (ISO 3166 and ISO 646).

I agree that this is an important part.

> This clearly belongs in the BCP category, as do the registration procedures for \
> charsets and MIME types; there is no meaningful way there can be more than one such \
> document.

I concur that the registration procedure belongs in the BCP category.

> The rest of the technical content, namely the syntax of tags (note that the \
> Content-Language: header itself is moved to another draft, which WILL be \
> standards-track) COULD have been moved to a THIRD document, standards-track, but \
> this did not seem like the Right Thing to do; also, if published at Proposed, it \
> would have required progression up the standards track before any referring \
> document could progress. Did not seem right either.

If the technical specification has significantly changed, yes,
the issuing at Proposed is quite appropriate.  Issuing at BCP
allows for the technical specification to bypass the 3 step
maturity process.

Yes, this is a small technical specification, but what concerns
me is the precedence set or extended by allowing BCPs to contain
technical specifications used in standard track protocols.

Kurt


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]