Re: [Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 71, Issue 15

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Sun, 10 July 2011 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19AA621F8666 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gXQfCSJbwvIV for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa06-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AEFEF21F8654 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2496 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2011 15:52:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (24.8.55.39) by p3plsmtpa06-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.110) with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2011 15:52:40 -0000
Message-ID: <B48A223B5AC348CB8A7F02F490F5A0BD@DougEwell>
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: ltru@ietf.org
References: <mailman.3017.1310311869.3031.ltru@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3017.1310311869.3031.ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:52:39 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3508.1109
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3508.1109
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 71, Issue 15
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:52:43 -0000

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co uk> wrote:

> I am reading BCP47 with regard to the rules for sending IANA info on 
> extension subtags.  The wording is not clear.  Does the paragraph 
> (below) mean that every time there is a new part to an extension 
> mechanism that the maintaining authority sends this to IANA? Or does 
> it mean that just the details of (in the case) the -t singleton are 
> sent to IANA?

The former.  Once the extension itself is registered, IANA has no 
further business with it, unless the extension is maintained (e-mail 
addresses of URL changed) or repealed.

> I think, taking in the comments from Karen, Doug and others, what I 
> may be happier with in the current scenario (Unicode as maintaining 
> authority) is if we could include within the RFC

You do realize that you just said "let's amend BCP 47 again."

> an obligation for Unicode to post any requests for subtags relating to 
> the -t extension to the ietf-languages list for discussion, in 
> addition to their own internal discussions,

I wish they would, out of courtesy.  But that's why Section 3.7 requires 
the maintaining authority to include a contact e-mail address and a 
mailing list address, and indeed why a mailing list has to exist.  (This 
was my concern about the 'iso8601' subtag in the -u- extension: I 
couldn't find that it was discussed on the CLDR mailing list, which (if 
true) would be exploiting a loophole in BCP 47 that the mailing list 
actually be used for something.)

> and that the opinions of the participants on this (aforementioned) 
> list carry the same weight as they do within IETF.

I don't think there's any way to regulate that.  I suspect some people 
on ietf-languages already may not feel the weights are equal.

> Protection for IETF participants would come via the IESG (in that IETF 
> participants can ask that the role of maintaining authority for the -t 
> extension be taken from Unicode if their views are not considered 
> appropriately).  Also, the resulting -t extension subtag record should 
> be posted to ietf-languages once agreed.

At least they could post an announcement with a link.  I think that 
would not be asking too much.

> Further, the registry should be mirrored by IANA and linked to the 
> subtag registry.

That's why the extensions registry (the "index" that is maintained by 
IANA) includes a URL to the registry.  And again, that's something I 
don't like about -t- and continue not to like about -u-: there is no 
registry.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­