Subject: Re: [Ltru] Ticket #40: AD Issue #7: section 3.4 on ISO 3166 vs. UNM.49

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:55:11 -0700

Hi -

> > From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Ticket #40: AD Issue #7: section 3.4 on ISO 3166 vs. UN M.49
> ...
> > Incorporating both changes:
> > 
> >    16.  UN M.49 has codes for both countries and areas (such as '276'
> >         for Germany) and geographical regions and sub-regions (such as
> >         '150' for Europe).  UN M.49 country or area codes for which
> >         there is no corresponding ISO 3166-1 code SHOULD NOT be
> >         registered, except as a surrogate for an ISO 3166-1 code that is
> >         blocked from registration by an existing subtag.
> > 
> >         If such a code
> >         becomes necessary, then the
> > Language Subtag Reviewer SHALL petition the registration authority for ISO
> >         3166-1
> > to assign a code to the
> >         region.  If the petition for a code assignment by ISO 3166-1 is
> >         refused or not acted on in a timely manner, the
> > Language Subtag Reviewer SHALL use the
> > registration
> >         process described in Section 3.5
> > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21#section-3.5>
> >         to register
> >         the corresponding UN M.49 code.  This way, UN M.49 codes remain
> >         available as the value of last resort in cases where ISO 3166-1
> >         reassigns a deprecated value in the registry.

Seeing no further discussion, and apparent rough consensus around
this text, I've marked this issue "closed" in the tracker.

Randy