[Ltru] Issue #36 (AD comment #3) rules for UN M.49 codes

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:08 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] AD review of draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21bis.txt
...

...
> 3). Section 2.2.4 says:
> 
> >        F.  All other UN numeric codes for countries or areas that do not
> >            have an associated ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code MUST NOT be
> >            entered into the registry and MUST NOT be used to form
> >            language tags.  For more information about these codes, see
> >            Section 3.4.
> 
> And Section 3.4 says:
> 
> >   16.  UN M.49 has codes for both countries and areas (such as '276'
> >         for Germany) and geographical regions and sub-regions (such as
> >         '150' for Europe).  UN M.49 country or area codes for which
> >         there is no corresponding ISO 3166-1 code SHOULD NOT be
> 
> Unless I am confused, I think this SHOULD NOT contradicts MUST NOT in 
> section 2.2.4.
> I think you need to change one of 2 sections.
> 
> >         registered, except as a surrogate for an ISO 3166-1 code that is
> >         blocked from registration by an existing subtag.  If such a code
> >         becomes necessary, then the registration authority for ISO
> >         3166-1 SHOULD first be petitioned to assign a code to the
> >         region.  If the petition for a code assignment by ISO 3166-1 is
> >         refused or not acted on in a timely manner, the registration
> >         process described in Section 3.5 MAY then be used to register
> >         the corresponding UN M.49 code.  This way, UN M.49 codes remain
> >         available as the value of last resort in cases where ISO 3166-1
> >         reassigns a deprecated value in the registry.

As co-chair - we should make sure that the resolution of this issue and
tracker issue #40 (AD comment #7) are coordinated.

Randy