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

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

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 4:05 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)
...
> So if we want to allow 831 and friends to be individually registrable,
> cool, but let's not come back later and say, "Wait a minute!  We needed
> 831 as a safety net!  What were we thinking?"
>
> > 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.
...

They'd still be a safety net - they'd only (in this case) be registerable
if the ISO 3166 code assignment request is refused or ignored. The decision
whether to accept the registration would still be subject to debate on the
ietf-languages at iana.org list.  At least that was my thinking.

If UN M.49 changes 831's meaning to refer to something else, then there is
a problem with the whole idea of them being a safety net.  If a request for
an ISO 3166 code to match 831 is first refused, and then a couple years later
accepted, well, that's just FUBAR.  :-)

Randy




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