Anomaly in upcoming registry

Doug Ewell doug at
Thu Jul 9 07:24:10 CEST 2009

Mark Davis ⌛ wrote:

>> 'sh' was given the Deprecated status in the Registry on the basis of 
>> its status in 639-1.  For us to overturn this decision basically 
>> means that we consider 639-3 to be a higher authority than 639-1.  I 
>> don't see how we justify that.
> For us to not do it, according to your logic, means that we consider 
> 639-1 to be a higher standard than 639-3.

Not exactly; I tend to think the bar needs to be higher to change 
something than to leave it alone.

> We certainly don't think that; all of the effort we have had over the 
> last few years is *because* we know that 639-3 is far more complete, 
> and well-thought-out, than 639-1 ever was. And we heard quite clearly 
> that the 639-3 committee considered deprecation and decided explicitly 
> against it.
> So I have no problem whatsoever in favoring 639-3, since we have to 
> make a choice one way or another.

OK, I can deal with this logic a lot better than the previous arguments, 
which sounded more capricious.  I'd still like to see what other people 
think about this, especially the Reviewer, since according to the letter 
of RFC 4646 and draft-4646bis this is still a rather exceptional case.

Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list