At 18:42 09/09/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
The draft does not include any of the overlapping codes on purpose. This is conformant with both RFC 3066 Section 2.2 and draft-registry Section 2.2.1, which both mandate that, where ISO 639-1 (alpha2) and ISO 639-2 (alpha3) codes exist, only the ISO 639-1 codes be used. The registry contains only subtags that are valid in language tags.
This is not what I ask. I say that the registered subtags should mention their standardised equivalence in other ISO tables. The proposed information is of no help when my application already uses an ISO 639-2 (or ISO 639-3) since I have no indication to convert it. However, if you do not provide it, we will provide it : it will make some advertising to our langroot.
I know I'm going to regret asking, but why would the IESG need approval from Michael Everson to tell IANA to publish a registry? They appoint him, after all.
I am afraid you might know many things wrong.The IESG needs approval from Michael _because_ they appointed him to that end. Unless you want to fire him? The Charter explicitely says:
"This working group will not take over the existing review function of the ietf-languages list. The ietf-languages list will continue to review tags according to RFC 3066 until the first document produced by the WG is approved by the IESG for publication as an RFC. Then it will review according to whatever procedures the first document specifies."
1) your Draft says that a batch registration is to be made. This is part of the new procedures: the Charters say it is to be reviewed. 2) Michael will review subtags the same as today, there is no special difference between what is in the Draft and what he is to approve. 2) only Michael has been appointed by the IESG to be "IETF authoritative" about the rightness of the Draft. How can we know otherwise he has no legitimate IETF opposition or there is no error since he is not on this list (he said it).
Actually I am wrong: the whole Draft should be reviewed by ietf-languages at alvestrand.no and _then_ Michael should approve it. How do you want them to work on something they did not agree.
To make sure Michael is consulted, is also a simple polite courtesy for us jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.