> Date: 2004-12-12 17:34 > From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@xxxxxxxxx> > To: ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx > CC: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > Are you claiming that > > > > sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu > > > is nonconformant per some specification in the draft > > proposal? > > Clearly not. But > > Â x-sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu So what? A private-use tag has to be agreed to by the communicating parties; in this case they'll find that such an unwieldy tag is unusable in an encoded-word and will have to agree to use something more manageable. That's a problem for the parties involved and nobody else, since it doesn't affect the rest of us. That's a different matter from a public tag that everybody is expected to be able to use. > is already absolutely conformant with the current RFC 3066. And the current > RFC 3066 clearly permits the registration of something as long as > > Â sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu > > (although of course this particular combination would certainly never get > in). I agree that that would never be registered -- because of the review process which is part of RFC 3066. But the draft under discussion has no mechanism to prevent it, unlike 3066. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf