Missing subtags 003 and 172
kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Sat Jul 31 10:43:33 CEST 2010
Den 2010-07-31 10.17, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>:
> Mark said:
>> Based on the discussion on this list, I put together the form for 003 and
>> sent out.
> Mark, please address Doug's comments (below) specifically.
> Doug, if your wrath is assuaged, tell us that you agree that the "arguability"
> of 003 is sufficient to allow this to be processed. You are the one that said
> adding 003 or 172 is "illegal".
> If **EVERYONE** does not agree on this, then I will reject the proposal, and
> ask you to initiate an RFC amendment to handle 003 and 172 (Plan B).
> Personally, I do not have an opinion. Unanimity, and unanimity ONLY, will get
> me to approve this proposal. (Then the whole group can be blamed.)
> If **ANYONE** has a fundamental objection (the kind of objection which will
> prevent a YES under **any** circumstances) on the basis of the RFC not
> permitting this registration, say so now, and Plan B will be the only recourse
> for solving this.
Actually, the RFC already says that 003 MUST be registered (see Mark's
registration form, where the relevant part of the RFC is quoted). You have
no way of saying no to this one; it is just that this code was missed in
the LTRU reviews.
172 seems possible to debate, even though I would see it as falling under
the same MUST in point A of that list, not falling under the MUST NOT in
point B of same list in the RFC (the MUST NOT covers the codes 199, 432,
722, 778, and, as I read it, only those four codes in the current M.49).
But it seems the request to register 172 might be withdrawn, and since
it seems to fall between the MUST and MUST NOT I have no objection to
not registering it.
(830, the (British) Channel Islands, briefly mentioned in this thread, isn't
covered by either of those two points of MUST vs. MUST NOT in the RFC; but
there is no request to register 830 even though it is "missing" in LSR.)
More information about the Ietf-languages