Delay in registering new ISO-based subtags [action for Scott]
McDonald, Ira
imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Sat Mar 4 22:42:25 CET 2006
Scott,
Lest you miss this point, there's an action item for you
in item (1) below.
Thanks,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 4:13 PM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Cc: Michael Everson
> Subject: Delay in registering new ISO-based subtags
>
>
> I'm trying to find out the reason for the continued delay in
> submitting
> the seven Language Subtag Modification forms to IANA, in
> accordance with
> Section 3.3 of RFC 3066bis, as described on my Web page [1].
>
> Each of these subtags is derived directly from an approved
> ISO 639 code
> element, which means that NONE of them should be subject to
> any debate
> or other non-trivial delay, other than necessary to determine
> "whether
> it conflicts with existing registry entries" (which I have already
> pre-verified). Six of these ISO actions (five additions and one name
> change) were approved in November; the seventh ("zxx") in January.
>
> Section 3.3 says that if the Language Subtag Reviewer "does
> not do this
> in a timely manner," an individual may submit the request(s) in
> accordance with Section 3.5. I'm not sure this means the
> individually
> requested language subtags would have to be 5 to 8 letters
> long, which
> is normally the case but would be artificial here.
>
> There is at least one real-world user (Karen Broome) who has
> expressed a
> need to use at least one of these subtags ("gsw") in a real-world
> application (tagging media content). Although this code element is
> already available for use with ISO 639-2, and therefore with
> RFC 3066,
> it is *not* available for use with RFC 3066bis until it is
> added to the
> registry. I don't speak for Karen, but I believe her desire
> was to use
> RFC 3066bis, with its productive script, variant, and private-use
> subtags, and not RFC 3066.
>
> I'd like to know if the reason for this delay is:
>
> 1. Confusion over whether RFC 3066bis applies here; that is,
> whether we
> are in the "RFC 3066bis era" yet.
>
> I'd like Scott to rule on this, unequivocally.
>
> 2. Confusion over whether Michael Everson is the Language Subtag
> Reviewer responsible for this.
>
> IESG stated on February 21 [2] that "We also confirm that the IETF
> language reviewer remains Michael Everson."
>
> Scott mentioned on February 20 [3] that the question of appointing a
> Reviewer "will be discussed during the next IESG telechat on 2 March
> 2006." He added, "The IESG's decision will be announced in the usual
> places; I will ensure that this list receives a copy." This was last
> Thursday; I'd like Scott to comment on the expected date by
> which this
> decision will be made available.
>
> It should be obvious that the registrations I am asking for
> have nothing
> to do with moderating the ietf-languages list, and should not be held
> hostage by that debate.
>
> 3. Confusion over the procedure (or workload) necessary to make this
> happen, or the appropriateness of the subtags.
>
> I think Section 3.3 makes this clear.
>
> I have done everything necessary to allow the Reviewer to
> copy-and-paste
> the request forms into an e-mail that can simply be forwarded
> to IANA.
> This would not take long.
>
> 4. Unavailability of the Reviewer.
>
> I think everyone knows, and I hope everyone appreciates, that
> Michael is
> very busy with his efforts to encode minority scripts and
> characters in
> Unicode. Sometimes these efforts take him away from home and prevent
> e-mail access for long periods of time. However, the work of
> reviewing
> language subtags is important also.
>
> I'd like to propose that, whenever possible, Michael drop a
> brief note
> to this list indicating his impending unavailability and the expected
> date when he can attend to Reviewer activities. If his period of
> unavailability is expected to be long, say a month or more, perhaps
> Scott can rule on the appropriateness of appointing a
> temporary deputy
> in his absence.
>
> 5. Refusal to perform the action, or some other problem.
>
> I hope and assume that this is not the case, but include this
> item for
> completeness.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California, USA
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
> Notes:
> [1] http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/new-subtags.html
> [2]
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/response-morfin-appeal-ietf-l
anguages-list.txt
[3]
http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2006-February/003939.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list