Formal request for explanation of IANA delay

Luc Pardon lucp at
Mon Mar 20 21:16:15 CET 2006

   On 28-09-05 at 23:53, almost six months ago, under the then current 
RFC3066, the language tag reviewer, Michael Everson, sent a message to 
iana at, titled "I approve the registration of el-Latn (Greek in 
Latin script)". The body of the message contained the registration as 
resquested by me.

   It seems this message was never acted upon by IANA, although 
everybody on this list seems to agree that RFC3066 was still active back 

   Unless I am mistaken, all IANA had to do is cut and paste this 
request into 2 (two) HTML pages that form the registry.

   About 2006-01-04 the RFC3066 registry was closed without el-Latn 
being included.

   I would appreciate an explanation for the 3+ month inactivity.

   Related question: Both 3066 and whatever-will-some-day-succeed-3066 
stipulate the review process in more or less elaborate detail, but stop 
short when the reviewer thows the request over the fence. Is there a 
document that describes the process thereafter, the delays that are to 
be expected, the complaints procedure if the delays are not respected? 
If not, why not?

    Luc Pardon

Doug Ewell wrote:
> I am writing to request a prompt explanation from IANA regarding its 
> delay in registering the following seven updates to the Language Subtag 
> Registry, defined by RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt:
> anp 
> (
> frr 
> (
> frs 
> (
> fy 
> (
> gsw 
> (
> krl 
> (
> zxx 
> (
> As of Monday, March 20, 17:15 UTC, these updates were not reflected in 
> the official Registry located at 
> These registration instructions were submitted to IANA by the Language 
> Subtag Reviewer on March 8, twelve days ago, in accordance with Section 
> 3.3 of RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt.  They reflect changes in the 
> underlying ISO 639-1 and 639-2 standards; the Registry is required to 
> keep pace with such changes.  As with all such instructions, there is no 
> administrative decision to be made by IANA except to insert the updates 
> in the Registry as described in Section 5.1 of 
> RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt.  This is a purely clerical task.
> RFC-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt does not specify a time frame by which 
> IANA must act on registration submissions from the Reviewer.  However, 
> keeping the Registry updated in a timely manner is paramount to the 
> success of the language tagging process described in the RFC, and one of 
> the main motivations for the LTRU project that created it.  An 
> unexplained delay of nearly two weeks for this task does not seem 
> justified.
> If this request for action and/or explanation by IANA may only be made 
> by the Reviewer, in accordance with Section 3.2, then I ask that the 
> Reviewer make this request on my behalf.
> I expect that IANA will be able to explain the delay promptly and 
> satisfactorily, and that it will not foreshadow an ongoing pattern with 
> regard to its maintenance of the Registry.
> -- 
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California, USA
> Editor, RFC-ietf-ltru-initial-06.txt
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list