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
- Re: [Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 71, Issue 15 Doug Ewell