Archival of registration forms

Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzmeyer at
Tue Apr 24 09:33:29 CEST 2007

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:54:25PM -0700,
 Doug Ewell <dewell at> wrote 
 a message of 52 lines which said:

> This would be easier if we could require the proposer to be
> responsible for updating his or her own form,

I do not see why. By definition, *someone* (probably the LSR) edits
the final form (the one sent to IANA). So, it is simply a matter of
copying it.

> Some registration forms over the past year have required major
> clarification or other cleanup before they were well-defined enough
> to go into the Registry.

That's precisely why it is important to have the final form:
understanding "valencia" or "1926baku" currently requires reading many
messages in the ietf-languages archive. 12 months from now, it will be
quite difficult and problems already discussed on ietf-languages may
surface again.
> I've always thought we were doing the proposer a service by
> considering and registering their subtags based on incomplete or
> vague forms plus a lot of discussion.  Probably this was misguided.

Not at all. This is perfectly right. I never suggested that the
registration forms be accepted "as is" or flatly rejected. Patching
them is fine, as long as the final form (which, I repeat, already
exists, I do not suggest to increase the amount of work for the LSR)
is publically available.
> I agree that the final record that is sent to IANA should be cc'd to
> ietf-languages (not LTRU).

It is not what the RFC currently says (section 3.5 which I quoted at
the beginning of the thread). Your proposal has merits but, in that
case, please suggest a change in draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-04 to the
LTRU working group. 

I would suggest that, in that case, a link to the archived message is
added in the Comments field of the registry.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list