Re: [Ltru] Registration Forms; have we made it clear which are archived

["Doug Ewell" <dewell at roadrunner.com>]

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> 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 agree with improving the review process, particularly with regard to 
transparency and timeliness.  I don't agree with some of the other ideas 
that came out of that effort, such as term limits for the Reviewer 
(which apparently never made it into any draft) or the need to formally 
reconfirm the Reviewer when 4646bis is published (which we never did for 
4646 or 3066).  And I don't agree about registration forms for ISO-based 
changes, as you know.

> Nonetheless, some people like the forms very much.

Question for those people: What is the specific benefit of forms for 
ISO-based changes?

> 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 see a problem with saying:

1.  There are two types of subtags, those that come from individual 
requests and those that come from ISO or UN standards.  You can tell 
which are which from the syntax; you don't even need to look at the 
Registry.

2.  New subtags and changes that come into being from individual 
requests have registration forms; those that come from ISO or UN 
standards do not.

> Good point: should we relax the restriction on the LSR sending them as 
> a batch to IANA?

Speaking as the one who prepares things for Michael to send to IANA, and 
occasionally the one who sends them, I don't support this.  Surprised? 
While it might be a good idea and save us some work, it would be a 
non-trivial change in procedure, and now that we're in WG Last Call I 
think the pain and delay of debating such a change is greater than the 
potential benefit.  Look how much we argued over whether IANA could be 
trusted to put UTF-8 characters into the Registry correctly.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
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
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru