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

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> <soapbox>
[...]
> </soapbox>

Nice.  But I don't believe it.  That Somaliland example is a
real example.  We saw it for Eritrea, we'll see it for Sudan,
and I've no idea how many real countries might develop from
the former Zaire.  Or Nigeria.  Or other mainly artificial
conglomerats on this continent.  Or elsewhere e.g. Indonesia.

>> 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.
 
> I don't believe they can be added if 831 through 833 already
> exist.  Addison and Mark can confirm or deny this.

No, they can fix their draft until it works for the real #1026
example before date-B and after date-B in any possible order
of events.

> ISO 3166/MA states that they do not add a code for a country
> unless it appears in the UN list.  This allows them to avoid
> the controversy of "defining" what is a country

Okay, so it is the normal procedure.  Maybe that's why draft
-04 is at it is, there's no "delay", UN numbers are just never
listed unless it's a conflict.

And why did we think that 830, 831. 832, 833 are listed ?  Is
the draft -04 correct, and we were just a bit dense ?  Or do
we only need a special rule for an ignorant Duke refusing to
register Her private possessions with ISO 3166-1 ?

> that's on purpose.  ISO alpha-2 codes are considered the
> standard form for region subtags, while UN M.49 numeric
> codes are considered a fallback in case the ISO approach
> causes problems (as with CS)

Here we have a new problem, the igorant Duke, or ISO 3166-1 
refusing to sanction their own provisional codes.  This can't
be true... :-(

I don't trust them.  Let's pick ccTLDs as source, or Mark's
list, after he decided what to do with BDT, GMT, BST, etc. ;-)

> UN codes and ISO 3166 codes do not supersede one another.

Then ticket #1026 is *O* *P* *E* *N*   I'd refuse to accept a
draft where regions are lost because ISO and the UN play games.
I don't trust them.

> If an ISO code does not conflict with an existing subtag,
> and has the same meaning as an existing subtag, aren't they
> the same code?

TL changing its name to XX.  Of course XX != TL, so I'd expect
that they are so decent to deprecate TL at the same time, OTOH
I don't trust them.

> Understandably, Randy will want something more concrete than
> this.

He will wait until it works in the worst cases ISO and the UN
are in theory able to create.  Fortunately they are willing to
create these worst cases in practice while we are still at it,
thanks to 831 and 832.
                         Bye, Frank



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