Flavors of Hepburn (was Status of Japanese requests)

Phillips, Addison addison at amazon.com
Tue Oct 6 17:20:58 CEST 2009

> If I understand correctly, Addison is saying that Michael has not
> followed Section 3.5 of RFC 5646, by not explicitly and publicly
> announcing one of the three actions listed in the bullet points on
> Page
> 45: approving the requests, rejecting them, or extending the review
> periods.

Addison is saying exactly that.

> It's not clear to me if Addison is challenging the approval of the
> two subtags, or simply noting the non-adherence to Section 3.5.

I am not. I support (and have said so on this list) the approval of the Hepburn subtags. I am not sure if the other subtags were also approved. I thought at least one of them had been withdrawn.

> IMHO, either filing an appeal or not filing an appeal would be
> better than talking about appeals while leaving it unclear whether one is
> going to be filed.

I pointed out the appeals process, not because I intend to use it in this case, but because others may not agree with approval to the extent that they wish to appeal. It is a much more serious problem to remove a record from the registry after the fact than to appeal it before insertion. By not announcing decisions publicly, as required, it is unclear what has been approved and what the inserted record is... and thus anyone in disagreement loses their last opportunity to say so. I recall at least one occasion in which a record was announced as approved by the reviewer only to be pulled back due to public outcry on this list. This was possible only because formerly insertion requests to IANA were copied to this list.

I have also said, recently, that the reviewer needs to announce extensions and rejections. For completeness, I probably should have mentioned those options too, except that you had said that they subtags were already submitted and thus, I assume, approved.

Please announce decisions in a timely way in the future.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list