John C Klensin <john dash ietf at jck dot com> wrote: > (i) Internet-Drafts and RFCs are different creatures. > It is perfectly acceptable, indeed common, to have text > in I-Ds that no one intends to see in a final RFC. Understood. The WG decided that the initial-registry I-D should be an RFC, for various reasons. > So, all I was suggesting wrt the text of the "initial" document > is that, when the IESG concluded that it had reached community > consensus, two things should happen: > > (1) The IESG instructs IANA to create the registry, > populating it with the elements as instructed in the > Internet-Draft and using the formats specified there > and in the "registry" I-D. > > (2) The document is passed to the RFC Editor for > publication, but with a note indicating that the 100 or > so pages of subtags should be dropped and replaced by a > paragraph that explains how the initial subtags, as > specified by the WG process, can be identified from the > registry itself. I _strongly_ prefer that the relevant > paragraph be constructed and approved by the WG itself, > rather than being made up by one or more IESG members; I > assume the IESG would feel the same way. That makes sense to me. Other members of the WG, and in particular the chairs, have orders of magnitude more experience with this sort of thing than I do, and so I can't speak to whether it makes sense to them. > How you get from there to "withdraw... replace ...instructions > to duplicate work..." is unfathomable to me, but it certainly > was not what I was suggesting. I apparently misread this passage, which you wrote and I quoted: | Normally, we don't even write a "create | the baz registry" document. Instead, we write a "baz protocol | specification" document and include a more or less long section | that instructs IANA to create the registry, what to put in it, | and how. I am delighted that my interpretation was wrong. > Unless I've missed > something, it ought to be problematic only if, somehow, the WG > believes that there is "credit" for an RFC in proportion to its > page count. That belief would be, AFIK, pretty novel around the > IETF. That was definitely not my intent, nor that of anyone else in the WG. Indeed, I pointed out that if LTRU is ever revised to incorporate subtags based on ISO 639-3 codes, the additional registry information would occupy 740 pages, and suggested that this amount of material might be inappropriate to publish as an RFC or even an I-D. A 118-page draft consisting almost entirely of a code list certainly shouldn't impress anyone by its length, any more than a 1,000-page phone book. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf