Bruce Lilly scripsit: > > I see no reason why limits must be added as a > > constraint in a revision of RFC 3066. > > The primary reason for specifying limits is due to the > proposed removal of the review/registration process > which currently limits the length of non-private-use > tags. The current process does *not* limit the length of non-private-use tags. It's true that the process does not permit the registration of unlimited-length tags, as we do not have enough universe to represent them in full. But absolutely nothing except his good sense prevents Michael from registering en-the-dialect-spoken-on-the-bowery-between-1933-and-1945-by-alcoholic-drug-users-who-live-in-flophouses. -- John Cowan jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan "It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon. Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back again. It's a classic tale." --Kryten, Red Dwarf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf