Peter wrote: >> Would that language get interpreted as saying IETF-languages can't even discuss the details of a request until that has been done? I don't see any reason why a requester could not notify the list that a change request has been made and I also see no reason why IETF-languages could not discuss such a request. In fact, given the new processes that we are hoping to introduce within ISO it would be an excellent forum for the ISO management and verification teams to reference. ISO needs input from the relevant communities in order to support the decision making process - linguistic/stakeholder/industry. >>What problem is being fixed here? (I don't know that we have an existing problem.) It is a matter of clarity. If we do not state that a requester MUST first apply to the ISO 639 JAC there will always be the awkward cuss who comes along and causes a huge rumpus - we have had our fair share of these and sometimes it is better to dot the i's and cross the t's. It could save us a lot of time in the future. Kind regards Debbie Peter -----Original Message----- From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Debbie Garside Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 6:11 AM To: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group' Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a) Not wishing to hold this up... but it would be better to have a MUST and it is perfectly simple to enforce. Proposed text: --- In order for a primary language subtag request to be considered for registration within the Language Subtag Registry, the requester MUST supply evidence that they have previously applied to the ISO 639 JAC to encode the entity and that the request has been rejected. --- I do see the need to go to ISO 639 JAC first. We really do not want to register primary language subtags and then find that after the event the ISO 639 JAC allocate their own subtag - which means ours would have to be deprecated. Thus I agree with Alexey and think it advisable to make the change. Never leave room for doubt unless you need to. That said, I think we all know what we are about here and I would not hold up this document for a lengthy discussion on this. Kind regards Debbie -----Original Message----- From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell Sent: 10 June 2009 13:25 To: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a) Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote: > Please express your preference (and the reasons for it) if you haven't > already done so. I agree that there is no need to change this RECOMMENDED to a MUST, because I don't see any particular advantage to requiring the requester to go to ISO 639 first instead of strongly encouraging her to do so, nor any way to enforce such a requirement anyway. -- 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 ^ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 17:53 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 17:53 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 17:53 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 17:53
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.