[Ltru] Re: Archival of registration forms
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Apr 25 09:31:39 CEST 2007
At 14:54 07/04/24, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic dot fr> wrote:
>>> At the specified address, you can find the language subtag registry but not the actual registration forms.
>> This is specially annoying since, apparently, the "official" registration form, the one which was sent to the IANA, does not seem to be always publically available. For instance, the form for the variant "baku1926" did not appear in ietf-languages (to find out what it looked like, you have to read several messages and to integrate the various patches proposed and accepted).
Based on the experience with other registrations, I think it is good
if the reviewer can request the proposer to resubmit, but it is also
good if the reviewer can go ahead and move on without waiting for
Too reasons for the above:
1) IETF traditionally tries to use a lightweight and flexible process.
2) Requesters often forget to do a resubmission. The typical case is
registrations where the requester has to submit the proposal to IANA
two weeks after the review; most requesters simply forget that.
>This would be easier if we could require the proposer to be responsible for updating his or her own form, and resubmitting it as necessary to reflect changes required by the Reviewer or recommended by the list. 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.
>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.
If completing the form can be done easily, that's a very valuable
and not misguided service. But the right to request a resubmission
should be available.
>Those of you who have experience with proposals for ISO, ANSI, BSI, WG2, Unicode, etc., either at the submitting or evaluating end, can probably share the pros and cons of the approaches taken by those bodies, and suggest a better way forward for us.
Make sure we stay flexible.
>Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:
>> I too find it questionable when the final registered format is not sent to the list prior to forwarding (or at least as part of forwarding) to IANA. In fact, I suspect that, given the stability guarantees and rules in RFC 4646, such registrations can be appealed if they differ from the requested record.
>I agree that the final record that is sent to IANA should be cc'd to ietf-languages (not LTRU). I would not tend to agree that it should be sent *before* final submission to IANA; that is what the review period is for.
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the Ietf-languages