Doug Ewell wrote:
> The presence of both 830 *and* 831 and 832, none of which was
> permissible under RFC 3066, is not likely to cause any great
> difficulty in the real world.
If they deprecate 830 too late we also deprecate it => ready.
> But it SHOULD be noted that if we do allow 831 and 832 (and
> 833), and if Addison is correct, we CANNOT subsequently
> register GG and JE (and IM) if those codes are added to ISO
> 3166/MA, and make them the Preferred-Values for the numeric
> codes. I think there is a common assumption that we (or
> ietf-languages) would do that.
Not my assumption. I got the idea that 3066bis is a one-way
street to UN numbers in slow motion. You (all here) didn't
like my plan to do this fast (at date-B) and for all regions.
As long as GG, IM, and JE still _can_ be listed a.s.a.p. it's
no real problem if their Preferred-Value sticks to 831...833.
> they cannot be superseded by ISO codes that are added later.
Is there a "normal" procedure that the UN numbers are "always"
changed first, and that 3166-1 follows suite later ? We could
add some text to the draft allowing for this delay, avoiding
premature registrations of unnecessary / redudant UN numbers.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
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.