Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Recommendation not to register variant subtags of the form 0nnn

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Thu, 30 July 2020 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647583A0A4D for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.232
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eJIUiRF-kN86 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F11E3A09C4 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) id 75DFF7C5987; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 21:13:44 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay - client-ip=2620:0:2d0:201::1:71; helo=pechora1.lax.icann.org; envelope-from=cowan@ccil.org; receiver=ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from pechora1.lax.icann.org (pechora1.icann.org [IPv6:2620:0:2d0:201::1:71]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E4247C5922 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 21:13:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora1.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF84570000F4 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:13:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id h7so26636133qkk.7 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aPauo1N8QdCGUuJoCN35S3AANPAl8WY5ZV93vGKJ/jA=; b=K4weAb8z0bkkwCuqjHZXfYDmf4KAKYR1qLFL2TIzjbcwTKIiTl3F/zoEQZ0sBlWRMF gLiU6/esxGUZQEkr1AegzNlicFDFRNJG46miRjDrbe2Uwmn9djs9AYO/UvdTVT+cRAMQ Vk8fx9sumpNRxnlpkYFomDVJjrAdKoyR1IyYES7E11cWn97nLzU/7AUgdgNZ5CK5vieQ oCVH1VrXMIkZ3YC3rYyxGzwjGtry7PWbExhLNQeLHF1EPeGpmZjhBcoBg++7/hwJcti9 y2/O/ZHXRyJvg6LEsGjsfp/o6ctcwW5EOn6YA1spAZpDAxgbB4IKTDpIdTsTGaFkBBhY VIzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aPauo1N8QdCGUuJoCN35S3AANPAl8WY5ZV93vGKJ/jA=; b=eiSoiXtM3nwKZbfMN8/hS2+S7TyQ8fNysuX7LnCJzDHSn8Aj/Pejq14ABPqumaY9GS 8xmC+p2kYMe/fMpeR86WITa4yVlol0ggnPyzyyDNblkmZ9fQ2aDEIHc5/ObxyluQZk16 A9PW5UZ2qe9RkBzVvkCITiGmnEfQlIizqZXkAat+UjKxeB8VBCzQ04qtBDhBD9PHwhp0 ZNcrW6G4dtTMwlJ/UYTaBBqlVYCEpyKjmhV5FI2BqWEPbvISx4HTW8aEpVH0s90dNyQI RBJEjP1wFyTE+Ooh/BE4423rBLvNFUmnFpCGMahSHe70cTLGax24kD5Cf/jqTddoJ38h 9R5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533EYD8Zuw7NNgC9u0v0a+p2RAqCxXGd5LF0+PptApj5xUI3mpZs fjWHLaS4PnvtUAKhCfdTgLrZ4ODNcqi9lcxy7kgyiw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyibPgpJQTlZPTpjSm3BFIQ/acV+aV3samThzJ+T+f1HTzUxmMZRA36rQlGagmAt+JPRTFJbVOqWHZsiUVgQkM=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4884:: with SMTP id v126mr695523qka.118.1596136399682; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a66144d8bae24114a1b1e64144ca1088@EX13D08UWB002.ant.amazon.com> <CAD2gp_Thc3pNicD-2+bMmaaBZPaLiyQzvVrPK+C+Y9NNCiBwCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD2gp_QeVRfvKVUr9a5avwzZS=EV0rri9Yvx0wcQzt1TaV7QFQ@mail.gmail.com> <000901d665ea$cd03a890$670af9b0$@ewellic.org> <MWHPR1301MB2112B310AF8F32515110BF2786710@MWHPR1301MB2112.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR1301MB2112B310AF8F32515110BF2786710@MWHPR1301MB2112.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:13:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2gp_R7KAOof+2caJiZGXdFNsGSp7U_ut56BLQVvVwADteH=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Constable <pgcon6@msn.com>
Cc: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>, IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages@iana.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001dd72f05abad77fb"
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (pechora1.lax.icann.org [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:13:41 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/0qSogvqRL3d3xG6yJlUrm7Rp0XE>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Recommendation not to register variant subtags of the form 0nnn
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-languages.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:13:49 -0000

What I am suggesting is simplicity itself:

Even though 4-digit variant subtags are legal, do not register any that
begin with 0.


Instead ask the requester to use some other subtag.  Exactly what other
subtag can be settled case-by-case when the time comes.



On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:54 PM Peter Constable <pgcon6@msn.com> wrote:

> This:
> > Our existing UN M49-based region subtags that begin with “0” are already
> subject to this.
>
>
>
> If it hasn’t been a problem over the past 10+ years for existing and
> in-use numeric region subtags, it’s not clear why we would need to change
> anything for hypothetical variant subtags.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Ietf-languages <ietf-languages-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Doug
> Ewell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:57 PM
> *To:* 'John Cowan' <cowan@ccil.org>; 'IETF Languages Discussion' <
> ietf-languages@iana.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Recommendation not to register
> variant subtags of the form 0nnn
>
>
>
> I understand the intent, although there are plenty of opportunities
> already for confusion.
>
>
>
> I have a colleague who often refers to the bogus tag ”en-EN” by analogy
> with “fr-FR” and “es-ES” and “it-IT”. (The organization doesn’t fully get
> that region subtags aren’t always necessary or desirable.)
>
>
>
> Our existing UN M49-based region subtags that begin with “0” are already
> subject to this. One of them, “en-029”, even has some currency. I don’t
> know if there has been any confusion around the leading zero. I know from a
> quick web scan that there is plenty of confusion from people who think a
> region subtag can only be an ISO 3166-1 code element, or who are still
> stuck in RFC 1766 and think a language subtag can only be two letters.
>
>
>
> I appreciate the nemawashi and suggest that we try to not enact any firm
> decisions, but keep this idea in mind whenever an all-numeric variant
> subtag is being floated.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
>