New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

[Bruce Lilly]

>  Date: 2004-12-12 17:34
>  From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
>  To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no, ietf at ietf.org
>  CC: ietf at ietf.org
>  
> > Are you claiming that
> >
> > sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
> 
> > is nonconformant per some specification in the draft
> > proposal?
> 
> Clearly not. But
> 
>   x-sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu

So what? A private-use tag has to be agreed to by the communicating
parties; in this case they'll find that such an unwieldy tag is
unusable in an encoded-word and will have to agree to use something
more manageable.  That's a problem for the parties involved and
nobody else, since it doesn't affect the rest of us.  That's a
different matter from a public tag that everybody is expected to
be able to use.

> is already absolutely conformant with the current RFC 3066. And the current
> RFC 3066 clearly permits the registration of something as long as
> 
>   sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
> 
> (although of course this particular combination would certainly never get
> in).

I agree that that would never be registered -- because of the
review process which is part of RFC 3066.  But the draft under
discussion has no mechanism to prevent it, unlike 3066.