Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #40: AD #7 - section 3.4 on ISO 3166 vs UN M.49

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:48:40 -0600

Alexey Melnikov <alexey dot melnikov at isode dot com> wrote:

> # 40: The new text is better, but it doesn't specify any dealine (as 
> other cases do). If the WG and Expert Reviewers think that this is Ok, 
> then it is Ok with me.

I think this is expected to be such a rare and extraordinary situation, 
and we have so little experience (i.e. none) petitioning ISO 3166/RA in 
this way, that the vagueness seems justified and harmless.  Any number 
of days we specify is likely to be as arbitrary as any other.

Remember that the new ISO 3166-1 rule about not reusing code elements 
for 50 years should greatly reduce or eliminate the stated scenario of 
"an ISO 3166-1 code that is blocked from registration by an existing 
subtag."

This is a corner-of-the-corner case, and as one of the Designated 
Experts likely to be caught in the middle of the whole scenario should 
it ever occur, I don't see a problem here.

--
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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:13:40 -0600

Sorry, there is no ticket for this yet, but at least this e-mail deals 
with only one issue.

Alexey Melnikov <alexey dot melnikov at isode dot com> wrote:

>>>> At the time this document was created, there were no examples of 
>>>> this kind of subtag and future registrations of this type are 
>>>> discouraged: primary languages are strongly RECOMMENDED for 
>>>> registration with ISO 639, and proposals rejected by ISO 639/ 
>>>> RA-JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer 
>>>> before they are registered with IANA.
>>>
>>> This might be a big deal, so this might actually require wider 
>>> review, such as IETF LC.
>>
>> What is a big deal? Why would an IETF LC be appropriate for this?
>
> To alert IAB and other interested parties about the situation.

Huh?

Someone wants to register a language subtag for (say) Loxian and submits 
a proposal form to ietf-languages.  The Language Subtag Reviewer, or 
designee, submits a proposal to ISO 639/RA-JAC.  That body consults with 
Linguist List, and after due process decides not to assign a code 
element.  The original requester makes a convincing case to 
ietf-languages that the subtag is justified.  The Reviewer and group 
"closely scrutinize" the request and decide to assign the subtag.

Why would this matter deserve special attention by the Internet 
Architecture Board?  Who are the "other interested parties" who need to 
review this?

The tag "i-enochian" was registered in 2002.  If done under 4646 or 
4646bis, it would have been the primary language subtag "enochian" 
instead.  As I recall, neither the IAB nor "other interested parties" 
were specially alerted.  What problems did this cause?