Subject: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 23:46:43 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> The text that is there in the -08 registry draft says:
>
>        E.  UN numeric codes and ISO 3166 alpha-2 codes for countries
>            or areas listed as eligible for registration in [initial-
>            registry] but not presently registered MAY be entered into
>            the IANA registry via the process described in Section 3.4.
>            Once registered, these codes MAY be used to form language
>            tags.
>
> As a technical contributor, I think this is the right thing to do, but
> it sounds like Frank and I are having trouble reconciling it with, for
> example, Doug's understanding:
> "In regard to the general matter of registering UN numeric code
> elements for countries and country-like entities (as opposed to macro
> regions), I believe they should NOT be eligible for individual
> registration, so that they may remain available as the "last resort"
> option in case of ISO 3166 code conflicts."

The draft is not consistent with itself.  Section 2.2.4 (3E), quoted
above, says we can register such subtags.  Section 3.4 (11), to which I
referred, says we may not.

> As a thought experiment, work through the "es-419" case using both
> approaches.

"419" is not pertinent to this discussion.  It represents a
macrogeographical area, not a country or country-like region.  As such,
it could not be equivalent to an ISO 3166 code element, and consequently
there are no restrictions on registering it.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:55:38 -0700

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:46 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)
...
> referred, says we may not.
...

I think you mean section 3.3 (11).  The text there in the
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-08.txt
draft says:

   11.  Codes assigned by UN M.49 to countries or areas (as opposed to
        geographical regions and sub-regions) for which there is no
        corresponding ISO 3166 code MUST NOT be registered, except under
        the previous provisions (as a surrogate for an ISO 3166 code
        that cannot itself be registered).  If it is necessary to
        identify a region for which only a UN M.49 code exists in
        language tags, then the registration authority for ISO 3166
        SHOULD be petitioned to assign a code, which can then be
        registered for use in language tags.  At the time this document
        was written, there were only four such codes: 830 (Channel
        Islands), 831 (Guernsey), 832 (Jersey), and 833 (Isle of Man).
        This rule exists so that UN M.49 codes remain available as the
        value of last resort in cases where ISO 3166 reassigns a
        deprecated value in the registry.

The difference in our understanding comes from the last sentence.  I think
Doug is reading it as the *sole* condition under which rule 3.3(11) may
be employed.  I, and I think Frank, read it as the *motivation* for the
rule, rather than a limiting condition.  The two readings play out
differently if the ISO 3166 registration authority fails to assign a
code when petitioned.  In Doug's reading, there's no registration,
and the party needing the code is out of luck.  In the alternative
reading, after some undefined (I'd leave it up to the collective
intelligence of the language tag mailing list) period, the UN M.49
code could be registered.  The question for the WG is which behaviour
is better / less bad?

I propose adding one sentence to 3.3(11) to make it more consistent with
2.2.4 (3E):  "If the petition for a code assignment ISO 3166 is refused
or not acted on in a timely manner, the Language Subtag Reviewer MAY
procede with the registration using the UN M.49 code."  Or words to
that effect.

This is very much a pathological corner case, and I hate to see us
spending so much time on it, so let's pick one of the alternative,
make the text clear which one we've picked, and be done with it.

Randy

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:58:05 -0700

I agree with the clarification Randy suggests.

‎Mark