John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
I don't think either of those are relevant. If we are not yet approved, that just means we can't apply the changes directly in 4645bis but will have to process them through on ietf-languages in bulk, which shouldn't be much of a problem. (Of course, you'll have to play Official Doug.)
What I've written in draft-4645bis is:"The version of the Language Subtag Registry that was current at the time of IESG approval of this memo served as the starting point for this update."
Then the three ISO 639-3 files are listed individually and referenced by specific revision. OK, you're right; there is no requirement to update the 639-3-based data dynamically while IETF is mulling over the drafts.
We would, however, have to update the draft to account for changes made by ietf-languages, such as the current "Moldovan" addition, which are much fewer in number than 639-3 changes. It might be problematic to tell the Reviewer and ietf-languages to postpone such changes for a few weeks until IETF LC is done, because we hold the Reviewer's feet to the fire to respond to all requests within two weeks. Maybe the fact of being in IETF LC would have to be cast as a "significant objection raised on the list" to justify extending the review period two weeks at a time, but I don't know if that would be considered a process violation.
As for the editor queue, it doesn't matter: as soon as 4645bis and 4646bis are approved, the new LSR goes into effect and so does the (mildly) new process.
Right again. After all this time, I'd forgotten that we operated under RFC 3066bis for almost a year before it was approved as RFC 4646.
-- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, 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 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.