From florian@rivoal.net Sat Jul 27 15:33:30 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE5F12008C for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:33:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rivoal.net header.b=IhLJp6Kk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=tCMWiPSG Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id faHN_k_XvxPb for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD9DE120052 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248C7350; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:33:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rivoal.net; h= from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :message-id:date:cc:to; s=mesmtp; bh=9czTXPszrZBYwDUtDIhL7ZCMB9H dcpo/pH1o+jGXVFU=; b=IhLJp6Kk1ArjYPIqopv7X2JjxInGBXwBCTZYp9LjC5b sjWmr7wW9M4GZf0f8sBT5Uv6fcf65Ms4A58x56kzr/FSeruy3j7ZIa01QaAOYyMX S9s40fkrtDipvJtuNLz46oFUGpUXmgVsOQOJIgsm5HMAFR+PZQwMBdBBbViVP0ws = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=9czTXP szrZBYwDUtDIhL7ZCMB9Hdcpo/pH1o+jGXVFU=; b=tCMWiPSGh2MBDqX+vA+LGS HA4XyiilJ8ndOxVcuIgRWs9GA+mRrN8fc5EP99R5Izo5gYJROK+GAB1trUfXVQnr nuZ9m+3iz2IQVXEUuilN/HRXiPrz3VD8NN28c/cqnc2cHf38X1nIJ8p9w7KbRvmI N0TsKOh3GBpGHBHIGF72Q9VkxFmLiGNxet3e078Oj0tfIjgpM2BOsocgxa/W1QIC N1TvJjqzbq/GhiK4VuY9u84uCpRyN0/qh/GQG7igtCtEqLythCSbt7WYH2GNR4wc wZhg+yIjGVIbruA2fISU4qt9dd6SA8UjCX/4rROC5uRn0j+XeMQSaCgaxVFi3XwQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrkeeigddujeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhtgfgggfukfffvffosehtqhhmtd hhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpefhlhhorhhirghnucftihhvohgrlhcuoehflhhorhhirghnsehr ihhvohgrlhdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppedujeeirddujeejrddugedtrdduudejnecurfgrrh grmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehflhhorhhirghnsehrihhvohgrlhdrnhgvthenucevlhhu shhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [176.177.140.117]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C54A48005A; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:33:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Florian Rivoal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Message-Id: <8C5004F5-70CB-41AD-BBF1-825DEAB73507@rivoal.net> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 00:33:23 +0200 Cc: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ltru-matching@ietf.org To: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) Archived-At: Subject: [Ltru] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis and draft-ietf-ltru-matching X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:34:33 -0000 (sorry if this mail is going to the wrong place, I am new to reporting = issues to IETF) RFC4647 section 3.2 says: > [...] designers of applications, protocols, or specifications are = encouraged to use the information from the IANA Language Subtag Registry = to support canonicalizing language tags and ranges [...] and > Applications, protocols, or specifications that canonicalize ranges = MUST either perform matching operations with both the canonical and = original (unmodified) form of the range or MUST also canonicalize each = tag for the purposes of comparison. However, RFC5646 Section 4.5, which defines canonicalization, only does = so for language tags, not for language ranges. Presumably, the process = is largely the same, with wildcards in the language subtag being = preserved, and I suppose wildcards in other subtags would likely be = dropped. But as it stands, that seems undefined. Also, while giving recommendations about canonicalization for the = purpose of filtering, it would seem useful to mention (and possibly to = recommend) canonicalizing to the "extlang form". The definition of the = extlang form itself (in RFC5646 Section 4.5) mentions that it is useful = for matching and selecting, but that information isn't relayed anywhere = RFC4647. =E2=80=94Florian Rivoal Invited Expert at the W3C's CSS Working Group=