Adding variant subtags 'aluku' and 'nduyka' and 'pamaka'fordialects

Phillips, Addison addison at
Sun Aug 23 03:32:40 CEST 2009

> that we simultaneously file a change request in ISO-639-3 to make

There is no "we" :-). You should probably follow up with the 639/RA. 

However, there is also no reason why you can't request a description of "Busi nenge" for the record 'djk' in the registry. There is an orderly registration process that allows you to do this and it would make the registration forms you proposed sensible, given that your comments refer to a language name that doesn't appear in the registry. This is my only objection to your registration request.

> Thanks again to all those who took part in the discussion. I think
> I have now
> understood that the general consensus is that we adopt the three
> variants in the
> version of Doug Ewell:
> and that I file a change request to ISO-639-3 to have the language
> itself called "busi nenge". Is that so?

Michael Everson (the Language Subtag Reviewer) needs to determine whether there is both consensus and whether the registration is thus justified, when the two week review period has ended. That will occur on the 28th of August, I believe.

In addition, Doug did NOT provide modified registration records in the mail you cite, so the registration cannot be completed using his proposal. This is one reason why I supplied a modified record in my message:

You should modify that record (or create a new one to your liking, or Doug can) so that the appropriate timing period applies and so that there is no confusion about what is being approved. Under the soon-to-be-published RFC 4646bis (aka RFC 5646), there are some additional rules about modifying requests. Specifically:

Sometimes the request needs to be modified as a result of discussion during the review period or due to requirements in this document. The applicant, Language Subtag Reviewer, or others MAY submit a modified version of the completed registration form, which will be considered in lieu of the original request with the explicit approval of the applicant. Such changes do not restart the two-week discussion period, although an application containing the final record submitted to IANA MUST appear on the list at least one week prior to the Language Subtag Reviewer forwarding the record to IANA. The applicant MAY modify a rejected application with more appropriate or additional information and submit it again; this starts a new two-week comment period.

Because this RFC has been approved and the registry modified to use its format, I think these rules are probably now in effect. The new RFC is likely to be published in the remaining time period for your request, apparently, and so the rules could certainly come into effect at any time during the remaining week of the process. So it would be best to be sure and submit a new record to your liking as soon as practical. It's good practice anyway.

Best Regards,


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list