Re: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)

["Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>]

I agree with the clarification Randy suggests.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 13:55
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)


> 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
>
>



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