Doug Ewell wrote: > > I see from draft-4646bis-12, section 3.3 that this is being changed, so > that Michael and I will have to generate registration forms for > ISO-based changes, and IANA will have to archive them along with the > individually requested ones. This strikes me as pointless busy work for > Michael and me, but I won't fight to the death over it, since ding so > seems to have little or no effect of late. I probably should have > noticed this change sooner. Probably a lot sooner :-), since it was in draft-06 that this sentence makes its first appearance: -- Usually this requires that the Language Subtag Reviewer fill in and submit the registration form found in Section 3.5 (Registration Procedure for Subtags) for the new or updated record. -- IIRC, this was done as part of clarifying the public review process and time periods for the automatic registrations. RFC 4646 didn't say very explicitly whether Michael was going to submit information to the list, for how long he was obliged to wait for commentary, and that sort of thing. > > I've cc'd Michael on this, so he is aware of the extra work we have in > store. Recall that ISO-based changes often come several at a time. I am not fond of the registration forms. I think their preparation and archiving is a lot of busy work for IANA, Doug, and the LSR--and they are difficult and annoying for most applicants to use. Personally, I wish we'd do away with the form and just require the necessary information be submitted with the record. Nonetheless, some people like the forms very much. I note that every registration coming from the LSR will bear the exact same information each and every time and most of this information has to be sent to the list anyway. Items 4 and 5 in the reg form don't apply to items required by BCP 47. So the work involved would be extremely small. > >> I don't think any changes to the I-D are being proposed here; I don't >> think any changes are warranted; and I think that the existing process >> (as described, but not always practiced very rigorously) is a Good >> Thing. > > The text in draft-4646bis-12 regarding ISO-based changes does not > reflect the existing process. The existing process is spelled out in > RFC 4646, as quoted above. > You're correct and my comment above is wrong. The problem here is that CEW's comment exposes one reason why these changes were made: if you use the registration forms, it's kind of weird not to see all insertions and modifications archived. > Recall that ISO-based changes often come several at a time. Good point: should we relax the restriction on the LSR sending them as a batch to IANA? Addison -- Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc. Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org http://www.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.