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
_______________________________________________
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.