[Ltru] RE: [newsml-2] japanese scripts

[Frank Ellermann]

Luc Pardon wrote:

> I submitted a request for registration of el-Latn (Greek with
> Latin script) in September last year, under the then current
> RFC 3066 rules. The registration was approved on 28 Sept 2005.

That was before "date B" 2005-10-16 in the 3066bis registry...

> It is my understanding that it should have been added to the
> then-current registry

...yes.

> but it was not.

Some case of Murphy between you, the tag reviewer, and IANA.

> The registry is now closed

If some approved registrations before it was closed are MIA
they could just add them.  Not too exciting in your case, the
new registry allows el-Latn.

> FWIW, it is unclear to me when, by whom and on what formal
> grounds

When:  About 2006-01-04 3066bis left state "IANA", see also
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/rfc/hist.cgi?draft=draft-ietf-ltru-registry

Who:  IANA of course.

What formal grounds:  After IESG approval anything IANA has to
do is done first, here create two new registries and close the
old registry as specified in 3066bis.

> RFC 3066 is still BCP and BCP47 still points to RFC3066

That's just another case of Murphy, the IESG added a normative
reference to [RFCTBD] (= matching) in their approval, thereby
screwing up the smooth transition more than necessary:

A delay of some months just allowing IANA, RfC-editor, authors,
and potential appeals to get it right is necessary, but waiting
for a not yet finished RfC is less desirable.

3066bis is already a RfC, it only didn't get its number yet.
Simply use the old RfC and registry if you don't believe it.

> draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt) is still in draft, has been
> so since 14 October 2005 and will expire on 17 April 2006,
> i.e. in about two months.

Approved drafts don't "expire", they wait it in the RfC-editor
queue until its their turn for some final editorial fixes, then
they get a number, and that's it.  They can't "vanish" from the
RfC-editor queue without severe reasons (e.g. if authors refuse
to approve modifications of 3rd parties like the IESG).

> I suppose the advice would be the same: just go ahead and use
> it to your hearts desire. Which, in my book, translates to:
> just ignore IETF standards and do as you please.

You can do that anyway,  You could also ask IANA and/or the tag
reviewer what went wrong, but I guess that's what you're just
doing.

> Which leaves me wondering why I bothered. It has been a waste
> of time. Silly me.

Obviously one reason why you bothered - "who knows how long it
takes until RfC 3066bis gets its number" - made sense, but then
your registration met its own Murphy.  One Murphy too many here.

> If IETF/IANA wants to make itself irrelevant, it only has to
> keep the various registrations proces(ses) as "efficient and
> smooth" as they apparently are and stand by as people do what
> they need to do to fulfill real needs they have in real life.

At the moment there's zero _real_ delay with 3066bis, after all
the appeal has to be resolved, and RfC editor state "IESG" is
not better than "missing REF".

If el-Latn is added now we'd also need it in the new registry
as "redundant".  The redundant entries are what the word says.

                               Bye, Frank