Fixing the lost el-Latn

Doug Ewell dewell at
Sun Mar 26 01:01:20 CET 2006

Luc Pardon <lucp at skopos dot be> wrote:

>    Of course, if the old registry is fixed and the new is not, this
> would kind of invalidate the sections of RFC3066bis that deal with the
> initial contents of the registry (e.g. 2.2.8 and 3.3). Personally, I
> would think that this should be addressed as well. However, if "those
> in the driving seat" can live with that, so can I. As you say, it's
> just docu.

The relevant passage in Section 3.3 is this:

"Note: The redundant and grandfathered entries together are the complete 
list of tags registered under [RFC3066]. The redundant tags are those 
that can now be formed using the subtags defined in the registry 
together with the rules of Section 2.2. The grandfathered entries 
include those that can never be legal under those same provisions."

Assuming that IANA does add "el-Latn" to the old Tag Registry, the 
question for the new Subtag Registry is whether the passage above refers 

(a) the complete list of tags approved for registration under RFC 3066, 
including those not yet included in the registry, OR

(b) the complete list of tags registered under RFC 3066, as indicated by 
their presence in the registry at the time of approval of RFC 3066bis.

I think it is safe to assume that everyone at the time thought (a) and 
(b) would be identical, and there would be no such thing as an approved 
registration that was not in the registry.

It might be instructive to keep the timeline of events in mind:

Aug 23    Start of IESG Last Call for draft-registry and draft-initial
Sep 06    End of IESG Last Call for draft-registry and draft-initial
Sep 13    Luc submits RFC 3066 registration form for el-Latn
Sep 28    Reviewer approves el-Latn and sends notice to IANA
Nov 14    Draft-registry and draft-initial approved by IESG

Perhaps this is something that IETF and IESG need to rule on.

Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list