> > I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some > > total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change). > Earlier feedback would have been had if there had been > some announcement of the proposed considerable changes > on the ietf-822 mailing list, or via an IETF WG > charter. This sort of thing is exactly why we last call non-WG documents for four weeks rather than two. Less review is assumed to have occured and this may well mean the document is in some sense "less done". So, while I know of no problems caused by inordinantly long language tags, now that the issue has been brought up using this opportunity to add a max length restriction seems like a very reasonable thing to do. > > However, we > > got considerable pushback on having RFC 3066bis make any previously valid > > RFC3066 tag be invalid > Entirely appropriate. And the proposed draft would > invalidate the meaning of the valid RFC 3066 language > tag "sr-CS", which is currently in use. > > and any length restriction would do that. > If it makes you happy, you can exclude private-use > tags from an explicit limit. I would only suggest doing this if it helps us reach consensus. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf