Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1026] what to do about Guernsey and Jersey

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

I've re-opened #1026, but please, let's work towards wrapping
this up.

Randy

> From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>
> To: <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:38 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1026] what to do about Guernsey and Jersey
>
> Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
> > If you think registration of UN numbers in advance of letter
> > codes is a real and important problem, PLEASE supply the text
> > you want to add or change in the i-d.
>
> As I said _I_ don't consider it as a very important problem,
> assuming that it's really the normal procedure.  But I recall
> that _others_ here like Ira might hate all unneccesary aliases.
>
> Hm, now that you ask me about some text I found a minor nit:
>
> | Values in the fields 'Type', 'Subtag', 'Tag', 'Added',
> | 'Deprecated' and 'Preferred-Value' MUST NOT be changed and
> | are guaranteed to be stable over time.
>
> In the hypothetical case TP -> TL, and TL changing its name
> again, we get TP -> TL and TL -> XX.  Is that really necessary,
> why not just update TP -> XX in this case ?  A very minor nit.
>
> | Codes assigned by ISO 639, ISO 15924, and ISO 3166 that do
> | not conflict with existing subtags of the associated type and
> | whose meaning is not the same as an existing subtag of the
> | same type are entered into the IANA registry as new records
> | and their value is canonical for the meaning assigned to
> | them.
>
> That's apparently an error, let's say "ISO 3166, and UN M.49"
> instead of (only) "and ISO 3166".
>
> And where's the rule about a new code that does _not_ conflict
> with an existing code, but whose meaning _is_ the same as an
> existing subtag ?  The TL -> XX in my example ?  We should
> simply delete this part resulting in:
>
>   Codes assigned by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49
>   that do not conflict with existing subtags of the associated
>   type are entered into the IANA registry as new records and
>   their value is canonical for the meaning assigned to them.
>
> Adding a statement about the "same meaning" case:
>
>   If existing codes have the same meaning a Preferred-Value is
>   added or updated to show the new code.  UN M.49 codes are
>   only added if no ISO 3166 code with the same meaning exists.
>
> In this form GG, IM, and JE would replace 831..833.  This isn't
> what we think how it should work, something with my proposal is
> still wrong.  But something in draft -04 is also still wrong.
>
>                             Bye, Frank
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru