> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Doug Ewell > My only concern is that the words "simultaneously" and "together" might > have a creative meaning when applied to two different RAs using their > own public reporting mechanisms and philosophies. Sometimes one RA > makes a change that isn't reflected in the other 639 part for some time. Unfortunately true; but on the other hand, the JAC secretary usually sends out mail notifications when changes are made, and I believe this list and IETF-languages are among those audiences to whom those mails are sent. > > I've suggested before that we could decide that we will never again > > register something from 639-1. That would eliminate these concerns > > entirely. > > It might be better if ISO 639-1 instituted such a rule, instead of us. Neither the JAC nor the 639-1/RA can institute a rule about practice for maintaining the LSTR. The JAC has a guideline not to add an alpha-2 in case an alpha-3 previously existed, though that is not a binding rule. The JAC has also informally agreed to adopt a very high bar for alpha-2 additions, making new alpha-2 additions less likely. Peter _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://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.