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

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

I agree.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 16:44
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)


> 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
>
>



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