FWIW, strongly agree on both points, especially the first. john --On Friday, June 24, 2022 16:23 +0200 Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Apologies for being slow in responding .... > > Two main points: > > - Tag 38 in its own document or not: > My worry isn't that RFCs go away. They don't. > My worry is instead that the problem-details doc will be > updated. New RFC number. But no change to the tag 38 section. > It can't "obsolete" the old one, because there is no change to > the tag 38, and the reference still points to it. > It will either have to "update" it, or "obsolete" it and move > all pointers to the definition for tag 38 to the new document. > That is a pain that makes things hard to follow. A stable tag > 38 document would be a greater benefit to the community. > > - Language tag grammar: > If you want to have a copy of the grammar, that's pain on your > head. I don't see the point, but your decision. If you want > it, you need to add a prominent paragraph that says "This > grammar represents the BCP XX grammar for language tags. If > there are any differences found between this document and BCP > XX, BCP XX is authoritative." > This is commonly done in ITU documents that describe things in > two places, for instance. Not important which one is > authoritative, very important that only one of them is. > > I'm sure the rest is details, and can be dealt with. > > Harald > > _______________________________________________ > art mailing list > art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
