Skip to main content

Initial Language Subtag Registry
RFC 4645

Yes

(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)

No Objection

(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Mark Townsley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2005-10-11)
Disclosure: Mark Davis, co-editor of draft-ietf-ltru-registry,
works for the same employer as me, but in a different department.

Editorial nit from Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies:

The new title of Figure 2 should be 'Registry Record Format' and not
'record-jar format' (which it isn't in any case).
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2005-10-12)
  In section 3 of draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05, it might be useful for the
  document to include the URL of the IANA registry.  It seems to me that
  anyone interested in this document will want to locate the IANA
  registry too.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2005-10-12)
I think that as this draft is structured today, it needs to be a BCP.
I do share the concerns of those who believe we may have gotten
something wrong and that we wish we had a good mechanism for
incremental updates or for progression.  I don't think calling this a
proposed standard gives us any of those things; it just confuses what
is going on.  I hope we're right with this draft or the mess will be
impressive.

I'd like to thank Scott and the WG chairs for all the hard work in
dealing with the /last call.  I found the summary absolutely essential
to reviewing the discussion.  I did end up going back and reading most
of the messages, but the summary was quite useful in focusing my
efforts.

I explicitly evaluated the security concern regarding privacy and
information exposure through tags. q I think the current text in
security considerations is appropriate for that issue.