Republic of Moldova
gerard.lang at insee.fr
Tue Oct 21 08:35:22 CEST 2008
Nevertheless, this question had to be laid down.
De : Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison at amazon.com]
Envoyé : lundi 20 octobre 2008 17:42
À : Lang Gérard; Doug Ewell; ietf-languages at iana.org
Objet : RE: Republic of Moldova
You have to read the stability section: there are potential cases where this would not be appropriate (where the description changes incompatibly). Not everything permitted--or even desirable--has to be obligatory.
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lang Gérard [mailto:gerard.lang at insee.fr]
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 8:25 AM
> To: Phillips, Addison; Doug Ewell; ietf-languages at iana.org; Lang
> Subject: RE: Republic of Moldova
> Dear Addison,
> If really RFC 4646 certainly encourages such changes, why not let this
> become mandatory inside RFC 4646 bis ?
> Gérard LANG
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison at amazon.com] Envoyé : lundi 20
> octobre 2008 17:20 À : Lang Gérard; Doug Ewell;
> ietf-languages at iana.org Objet : RE: Republic of Moldova
> > As such a change is mandatory for us, ISO 3166/MA will soon
> publish a
> > 3166-1 Newsletter VI-4 about this change.
> Actually, they're not.
> RFC 4646 only requires us to track and deal with *new* code
> assignments by UN M.49 and ISO 3166-1.
> It is a Good Thing to update the official name in the record and RFC
> 4646 certainly encourages such changes. But they are not part of the
> mandatory list of things that must be done. Note that anyone may
> request the update to the record using the registration process.
More information about the Ietf-languages