Modification Request: dsb et al. (Suppress-Script: Latn)

Peter Constable petercon at
Mon Oct 22 18:24:23 CEST 2007

Procedural objection:

As LSTR, your job is to process requests, not to second-guess the process. If there are concerns about the request raised during the discussion, then you can say you will not approve it as there is not consensus. But IMO *this* is not the place for you to discuss whether there's a practical need. If it's requested and nobody objects, you register it. If there is a question of appropriateness, that is an objection that would get raised, and you make a decision not to register on that basis. But somebody, including the LSTR, saying they don't have a need is not a valid basis for blocking the request.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:10 AM
> To: IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: Modification Request: dsb et al. (Suppress-Script: Latn)
> At 18:12 -0700 2007-10-20, Doug Ewell wrote:
> >It's been almost three weeks since Frank Ellermann submitted his
> >list of Suppress-Script requests, so I think some sort of resolution
> >needs to be decided upon, and announced to the list.
> I am sure that Frisian uses Latin, which is the opinion I as reviewer
> can offer. I don't really care whether it has a Suppress Script or
> not. I certainly don't see a NEED for it (who is writing Frisian in
> anything else?) and the requesst for registration seems formal rather
> than practical. Some people are saying that the Suppress Script is
> badly designed. If you all want the requests processed, say so. If
> you think this is an LTRU matter, say so.
> --
> Michael Everson *
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list