Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)

[Mark Davis <mark at macchiato.com>]

Me too. I'd be even happier with

proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-
JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer
before they are registered with IANA.
=>
proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-

JAC MUST be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer

before they are registered with IANA.

The proposal should not try to predict what the LSR will do, it should explicitly tell the LSR what to do, and that means a MUST.

Mark

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 14:20, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> wrote:

Hi -

> From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
> To: <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:58 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)

>
> 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.

As a technical contributor...

As long as the understanding is that we don't need to go back and
wordsmith to cover the cases of indefinite delay, non-response, or
tweaks to the scope of what is covered by the registration in ISO-land,
I'd be OK with Alex's proposed text.

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru