Subject: [Ltru] Re: Process

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:40:39 -0700

Disclaimer: I may have a conflict of interest in discussing Mark's 
proposal below, since it would likely turn my "behind the scenes" role 
into an Official Board Membership.

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> 3.2. Language Subtag Review Board

In general, I support this proposal.  A few specific comments follow.

> Any instance where the LSB does not follow the procedures in this 
> document are grounds for dismissal by the IESG.

"Any instance"... "is"

> The IESG can reverse or overturn the decision of the Language Subtag 
> Board, provide guidance, or take other appropriate actions.

I don't understand the difference between reversing a decision and 
overturning it.  This wording is also in RFC 4646.

> Because of the need for stability, however, once a change is posted to 
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry, it is 
> irrevocable.

In that case, we will *really* need the mechanism proposed below whereby 
we make the actual changes, and IANA merely posts the new file.  With 
the current system, we need to be able to correct errors.  We may still 
need a provision to correct flagrant syntactical errors, such as a 
"Type" field being omitted.

We should also have some assurance that what IANA received is the same 
as what we sent -- for instance, by providing them an MD5 as Martin 
suggested for 4645bis.

> Maintenance of the registry requires that as codes are assigned or 
> withdrawn by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49, the Language 
> Subtag Board MUST evaluate each change, determine whether it conflicts 
> with existing registry entries, and within 30 days propose a change to 
> the registry as described in Section 3.5.
> ...
> The Language Subtag Board MUST respond within 15 days to any language 
> subtag request form.

I would like to see some provision for limited extension of these 30-day 
and 15-day limits, in case one or more of the Reviewers is absent or 
unavailable, preventing the two-thirds majority vote.  I can easily 
imagine a problem arising if a request is filed in early to 
mid-December.

> Upon acceptance, the Language Subtag Board MUST incorporate 
> corresponding changes into a public Draft Language Tag Registry, 
> having precisely the same syntax as 
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry, and notify 
> the Language Tag Registry Mailing List.

This should specify that this is the ietf-languages list, not the LTRU 
WG (which will not be around forever).  Also, replace "Tag" with 
"Subtag".

> During a 15-day review period, people have the opportunity to review 
> the syntax of the change, and the Language Subtag Board may make 
> changes in response to feedback. Any such change starts the 15-day 
> review period anew.

Excellent.

> Once the review period has completed, the LSB will change the 
> File-Date and forward the entire file to IANA for posting within 7 
> days.

Then I don't think it should be necessary for the registration form 
(which would now be processed solely by the LSB, not IANA) to contain a 
File-Date which will only be overridden.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:38:32 -0400

> overturning it.  This wording is also in RFC 4646.

I understand the technical distinction to be that when a decision
is overruled, a contrary decision is put in its place; whereas when
a decision is reversed, no decision is put in place and the question
becomes once again undecided.

-- 
You are a child of the universe no less         John Cowan
than the trees and all other acyclic            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
graphs; you have a right to be here.            [email-masked]
  --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath