Re: Proposed new records and reg forms for ISO 15924 changes

Mark Davis ⌛ wrote:

> I suggest that we hold off on these until the new, revised iana 
> registry is in place. There is no immediate need for them, and it 
> complicates the process.

John Cowan  <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> Presumably this will have to be redone after IANA refreshes the 
> registry from 4645bis (which has been approved, although not yet 
> published).  Should we sit on it for a while?

If we sit on these, do we risk running afoul of the requirement in 
Section 3.3 that the Reviewer must add these "in a timely manner"?  We 
have no idea how long the RFC Editor will take to publish the revised 
spec.

Note that the existing Registry already has 6 new and/or changed script 
subtags (Lana, Lisu, Nkgb, Plrd, Tglg, Zinh), added in March and April, 
but not present in draft-4645bis, which was submitted in February.  I 
suggested adding these changes to the draft during AUTH48, along with 
any others that may occur before publication (such as the present 
batch), but was told by the co-chairs that this would not be appropriate 
and they should be added as I have suggested here.

I have no problem with waiting on these 3 new changes and any subsequent 
ones, and limiting the special cases to the 6 listed above, but I want 
to make sure nobody is going to cry "process failure" if we do.

--
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  ˆ