Subject: [Ltru] Re: Archival of registration forms

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:27:56 -0700

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic dot fr> wrote:

> 1) Small modification to 4646bis, section 3.5, to make clear that IANA 
> does not receive the form (and therefore does not archive it) but only 
> the record (which will go "as is" in the registry). If I understand 
> well, that's Doug Ewell's opinion.

I don't recall having stated an opinion, and I certainly don't "hate" 
the idea of sending the registration forms to IANA as Frank implied.  I 
did say that Michael and I had been sending only the new or changed 
record, and that this was in accordance with some (though not all) of 
RFC 4646, but not necessarily that that was the best option.

In fact, one advantage to having the registration forms is that 
proposers will be more willing to have lengthy bibliographic citations 
appear there, instead of filling the Registry with them.

My main concern is that the set of archived registration forms must 
match *exactly* the set of subtags registered by user request since the 
Registry went live in October 2005.  That will require going back and 
reconstructing some forms.  To do otherwise is essentially to have two 
conflicting resources, the Registry and something else, just like we had 
in the RFC 3066 era, and *that* is something I would hate.

> 2) Same as 1) *plus* an obligation for the LSR or the submitter to 
> post the *final* form on ietf-languages so it is archived and 
> accessible (without involving IANA).
>
> 3) Modification to 4646bis, section 3.3 and 3.5 to make crystal-clear 
> that IANA receives the *form*, not just the record and make it 
> available, both in the registry and in a to-be-determined repository. 
> (Apparently the way it was supposed to work in RFC 3066).
>
> Opinions?

In decreasing order of preference: 3, 1, 2.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:30:51 -0700

To address at least part of this problem (the appearance of the final 
form on-list), I have made the following change in section 3.5, from this:

--
    The applicant is free to modify a rejected application with
    additional information and submit it again; this restarts the two-
    week comment period.
--

To this:
<t>Sometimes the requested record needs to be modified as a result of 
discussion during the review period or due to requirements in this 
document. The applicant, Language Subtag Reviewer, or others are free to 
submit a modified version of the request, which will be considered in 
lieu of the original request with the explicit approval of the 
applicant. Such changes do not restart the two-week discussion period, 
although an application containing the final record submitted to IANA 
MUST appear on the list at least one week prior to the Language Subtag 
Reviewer forwarding the record to IANA. The applicant is also free to 
modify a rejected application with additional information and submit it 
again; this starts a new two-week comment period.</t>

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.