Trying to catch up... Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote: >> I have never, ever argued in favor of making the registry >> draft an RFC. > > Registry draft => Addison and Mark, draft registry => you. You are right. I apologize for screwing up the terminology (which I helped create) and completely misunderstanding your intent. No excuses. > | For ISO 3166 codes, if the newly assigned code's meaning is > | associated with the same UN M.49 code as another 'region' > | subtag, then the existing region subtag remains as the > | canonical entry for that region and no new entry is created. > > That's the "same piece of land" defined by UN numbers, it's in > the *actual* draft -01. It's used in several rules to resolve > conflicts. That's fine. Just don't refer to it as "Doug's rule." -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.