Alexey Melnikov <alexey dot melnikov at isode dot com> wrote:
# 40: The new text is better, but it doesn't specify any dealine (as other cases do). If the WG and Expert Reviewers think that this is Ok, then it is Ok with me.
I think this is expected to be such a rare and extraordinary situation, and we have so little experience (i.e. none) petitioning ISO 3166/RA in this way, that the vagueness seems justified and harmless. Any number of days we specify is likely to be as arbitrary as any other.
Remember that the new ISO 3166-1 rule about not reusing code elements for 50 years should greatly reduce or eliminate the stated scenario of "an ISO 3166-1 code that is blocked from registration by an existing subtag."
This is a corner-of-the-corner case, and as one of the Designated Experts likely to be caught in the middle of the whole scenario should it ever occur, I don't see a problem here.
-- 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
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.