At the same time, we understand that BCP 47 demands certain duties of the Reviewer, the ietf-languages list, and IANA, such that if these duties are not performed, some or all of the maintenance process may break down. For example, if the Reviewer does not issue a verdict on proposed subtags in a timely manner, or if IANA delays the release of a revised Registry or makes errors in doing so, some of the promises made by BCP 47 to producers and consumers of language tags are not kept.
Consequently, it seems reasonable to me to use RFC 2119 "MUST" in some of these requirements. We are not saying that if IANA does not do this or that, we will chop off their hands, but we are stating the fact that it will adversely affect some part of the process.
I don't claim to be an RFC 2119 lawyer or historian by any stretch, so if there is some longstanding tradition that RFC 2119 "MUST" is appropriate only for computers and demeaning when applied to humans, then I apologize and stand corrected.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ 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.