Hi -
As a technical contributor...
> From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:46 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)
...
> The draft is not consistent with itself. Section 2.2.4 (3E), quoted
> above, says we can register such subtags. Section 3.4 (11), to which I
> referred, says we may not.
...
I think you mean section 3.3 (11). The text there in the
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-08.txt
draft says:
11. Codes assigned by UN M.49 to countries or areas (as opposed to
geographical regions and sub-regions) for which there is no
corresponding ISO 3166 code MUST NOT be registered, except under
the previous provisions (as a surrogate for an ISO 3166 code
that cannot itself be registered). If it is necessary to
identify a region for which only a UN M.49 code exists in
language tags, then the registration authority for ISO 3166
SHOULD be petitioned to assign a code, which can then be
registered for use in language tags. At the time this document
was written, there were only four such codes: 830 (Channel
Islands), 831 (Guernsey), 832 (Jersey), and 833 (Isle of Man).
This rule exists so that UN M.49 codes remain available as the
value of last resort in cases where ISO 3166 reassigns a
deprecated value in the registry.
The difference in our understanding comes from the last sentence. I think
Doug is reading it as the *sole* condition under which rule 3.3(11) may
be employed. I, and I think Frank, read it as the *motivation* for the
rule, rather than a limiting condition. The two readings play out
differently if the ISO 3166 registration authority fails to assign a
code when petitioned. In Doug's reading, there's no registration,
and the party needing the code is out of luck. In the alternative
reading, after some undefined (I'd leave it up to the collective
intelligence of the language tag mailing list) period, the UN M.49
code could be registered. The question for the WG is which behaviour
is better / less bad?
I propose adding one sentence to 3.3(11) to make it more consistent with
2.2.4 (3E): "If the petition for a code assignment ISO 3166 is refused
or not acted on in a timely manner, the Language Subtag Reviewer MAY
procede with the registration using the UN M.49 code." Or words to
that effect.
This is very much a pathological corner case, and I hate to see us
spending so much time on it, so let's pick one of the alternative,
make the text clear which one we've picked, and be done with it.
Randy
_______________________________________________
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.