Archival of registration forms
Doug Ewell
dewell at adelphia.net
Tue Apr 24 17:03:33 CEST 2007
The Language Subtag Registration Form, originally submitted by the
proposer for additions and changes NOT triggered by change to the core
standards, is shown in Figure 5 of RFC 4646 (Section 3.5, page 30 in the
plain-text version). This form has NOT been sent to IANA thus far.
What we have been sending to IANA is the Language Subtag Modification
Form shown in Figure 4 (Section 3.3, page 25 in the plain-text version).
My understanding was that the Registration Form was intended for the
proposer to present the new subtag and explain its usage and context and
history and references to the ietf-languages list, to help the Reviewer
and other list members evaluate the subtag and raise questions. I
further understood that the *record* to be added or changed in the
Registry was what was to be sent to IANA:
"When the two-week period has passed, the Language Subtag Reviewer
either forwards the record to be inserted or modified to iana at iana.org
according to the procedure described in Section 3.3, or rejects the
request because of significant objections raised on the list or due to
problems with constraints in this document (which MUST be explicitly
cited)." (Section 3.5)
"When either a change or addition to the registry is needed, the
Language Subtag Reviewer MUST prepare the complete record, including all
fields, and forward it to IANA for insertion into the registry. Each
record being modified or inserted MUST be forwarded in a separate
message." (Section 3.3)
It was thought that sending additional information to IANA that was not
intended for insertion into the Registry, such as the requester's name
and e-mail address and extensive bibliographic references, would result
in confusion on the part of IANA and possible errors in the Registry.
I recognize that this conflicts with the wording in in Section 3.5 which
spurred this thread:
"All approved registration forms are available online in the directory
http://www.iana.org/numbers.html under 'languages'."
It seems to me that if IANA needs to archive (which I assume also means
"make publicly available") the original registration forms, then there
is substantial duplication between the two forms in Figure 4 and Figure
5 that needs to be resolved. It needs to be clear to IANA which
information is to be added to the Registry and which is not. I think
this is an ideal time to review the two forms and possibly consolidate
them for RFC 4646bis.
If desired, I can go through the ietf-languages archives and find the
original Registration Forms for changes made since the launch date
(October 2005). It is important to realize that we have *not* been
making changes to the original form, much less requiring the original
submitter to make them, to reflect changes to the request that have
resulted from list discussion. We will need to decide how to resolve
any differences, if at all, and we should probably do all of this on the
list to ensure transparency and openness and avoid disputes, as Addison
pointed out.
I want to emphasize that any deviations from RFC 4646 for which I am
responsible, as Michael's unofficial golf caddy, have been in the
interest of getting the requester's subtags registered and maintaining
the intended form and function of Registry entries as I understand it.
Michael and I did edit down the Comments field in Reşat's recenty
approved subtag, to reduce the number of words while keeping all of the
alternative names he listed. I imagine that with IANA archiving of the
registration forms, for past and future registrations, the perceived
need to put all of this in the Registry may be reduced.
--
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list