Having seen the discussion around this issue, I think "MUST" here
is going overboard. This has not been a problem before, and I
don't foresee that this would be a problem in the future. In practice,
there is no real difference, but a "MUST" here seems to push this
into the absurd ("document e-mail thread", "180 days limit", ...).
So I'm opposed to the suggested change.
Nit: "ISO 639" cannot register anything, nor do anything else, it's
a series of standards, not a registration authority.
Another nit: "will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer
before they are registered with IANA", seems to imply that registration
is inevitable, despite close scrutiny.
/kent k
Den 2009-06-11 21.58, skrev "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>:
> I am not entirely happy with the resolution "wantfix" for this one, as
> this is a typical case of what can bring a DISCUSS from other IESG members.
> So let me try to suggest a specific text.
>
> OLD:
> 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, and proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer
> before they are registered with IANA.
>
> NEW:
> At the time this document was created, there were no examples of
> this kind of subtag and future registrations of this type are
> discouraged: an attempt to register a primary language MUST be
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> made to ISO 639, and proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer
> before they are registered with IANA.
>
>
> I.e. the discussion about what the Language Tag Reviewer is going to do
> is not the point of this issue.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.