co-chair hat off:I fully agree with Randy. Bothering the IETF list with a last call on a single entry in a registry, for what will be a very marginal case, is going to upset more than it's going to help.
Regards, Martin. On 2009/06/09 12:46, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -From: "Alexey Melnikov"<alexey.melnikov at isode.com> To: "LTRU Working Group"<ltru at ietf.org> Cc: "Martin J. Dürst"<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>; "Randy Presuhn"<randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:14 PM Subject: Re: Additional issues with 4646bis raised by an Apps Review Team review...12). In Section 2.2.1:5. Any language subtags of 5 to 8 characters in length in the IANA registry were defined via the registration process in Section 3.5 and MAY be used to form the primary language subtag. An example of what such a registration might include: one of the grandfathered IANA registrations is "i-enochian". The subtag 'enochian' could be registered in the IANA registry as a primary language subtag (assuming that ISO 639 does not register this language first), making tags such as "enochian-AQ" and "enochian- Latn" valid. At the time this document was created, there were no examples of this kind of subtag and future registrations of this type are discouraged: primary languages are strongly RECOMMENDED for registration with ISO 639,I suggest that the RECOMMENDED is changed to a MUST, i.e. an attempt to register it with ISO 639 must be made. Even if the outcome might be known, arguments given by ISO 639 might provide useful input to the Language Subtag Expert.and proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA- JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer before they are registered with IANA.This might be a big deal, so this might actually require wider review, such as IETF LC.... As a technical contributor... Requests for new primary language subtags are, particularly if 4645bis is approved, likely to be very infrequent and rather specialized. If the corresponding request for a new language code were rejected by the ISO 639 folk, then the odds are very good that we'd be talking about a particularly fuzzy case of language vs. variety, a particularly dead language or some other case that will revolve around (1) specialized needs of those who want to be able to tag material in this language and (2) some linguistic argumentation about whether this can reasonably be considered to be a variety of something already registered. In either case, I'm *highly* sceptical that much taking it to an IETF last call would be enlightening or useful. The people who care about such things are either already on the ietf-languages at iana.org list, or will be recruited to that list by the party seeking the registration. To cite a past example, I cannot imagine how having an IETF last call on Enochian would have been helpful to anyone. Consequently, I am strongly opposed to making this change. Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
-- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.