Re: [Ltru] Issue #22: revert preferred-value for CS

["Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>]

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> My concern is that this WG should not be making changes to the content 
> of existing registry entries unless absolutely necessary.  Making 
> changes to existing entries is properly the job of the LSR and 
> ietf-languages at iana.org

I agree, except when we (LTRU) write drafts that require such changes.

As an example, we (LTRU) agreed that it was OK for draft-4645bis to 
reorder language subtags so the 2-letter subtags would appear before the 
3-letter subtags, to reorder the Description fields so the ISO 639-3 
reference name would come first, to un-invert the inverted names, and to 
reorder the fields within subtags to match the order in which they are 
defined in draft-4646bis.  Each of these decisions required one or more 
changes to the content of existing entries.  Do a diff between the 
current and draft-4645bis registries to see how many.

Several Preferred-Value fields have already been changed:

Current Registry:

Type: grandfathered
Tag: i-hak
Description: Hakka
Added: 1999-01-31
Preferred-Value: zh-hakka
Deprecated: 2000-01-10

New Registry:

Type: grandfathered
Tag: i-hak
Description: Hakka
Added: 1999-01-31
Deprecated: 2000-01-10
Preferred-Value: hak

> I agree that this is a corner case, due to the technical change in the 
> handling of preferred-value chains.  I'd be comfortable allowing the 
> it *iff* the LSR and the good people on ietf-languages at iana.org 
> agree to the change.

It might be a good idea to notify LSR and the good people on 
ietf-languages so they have a chance to reply.  In any case, this issue 
appears not to be nearly as non-controversial as the other two.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, 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