Updated record for 'u' in Extensions Registry
addison at lab126.com
Wed Mar 26 00:50:34 CET 2014
I agree that the overlong record for extension ‘u’ needs to be corrected.
According to RFC 6067 itself:
Per Section 5.2 of [BCP47]<http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-5.2>, there
might be occasional (rare) requests by the Unicode Consortium (the
"Authority" listed in the record) for maintenance of this record.
Thus, the correct target audience for this should be the Unicode Consortium (and presumably the CLDR-TC of same), as they are the Authority capable of requesting maintenance. To help facilitate this, perhaps file a bug in their Tracker? 
From: yoshito_umaoka at us.ibm.com [mailto:yoshito_umaoka at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:55 PM
To: Doug Ewell
Cc: Phillips, Addison; Martin Dürst; ietf-languages; Mark Davis
Subject: Re: Updated record for 'u' in Extensions Registry
Sorry for not responding your message.
I read your message in January, but I did not understand what action was expected.
Because other co-authors (Mark and Addison) have more experience with IETF process, I expected they take some necessary actions.
Could you tell us how we can proceed further?
"Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org<mailto:doug at ewellic.org>> wrote on 03/25/2014 02:56:21 PM:
> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org<mailto:doug at ewellic.org>>
> To: "ietf-languages" <ietf-languages at iana.org<mailto:ietf-languages at iana.org>>
> Cc: "Mark Davis" <mark at macchiato.com<mailto:mark at macchiato.com>>, "Addison Phillips"
> <addison at lab126.com<mailto:addison at lab126.com>>, "Yoshito Umaoka" <yoshito_umaoka at us.ibm.com<mailto:yoshito_umaoka at us.ibm.com>>,
> "Martin Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp<mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>>
> Date: 03/25/2014 02:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Updated record for 'u' in Extensions Registry
> This is a last call to see whether the maintaining authority for BCP 47
> has any plans to correct the entry for extension 'u' in the Language Tag
> Extensions Registry that contains an overlong line.
> I've written privately about this twice, with no reply.
> If there is no correction, I'll drop the matter and assume I'm the only
> one interested in whether this registry adheres to the ABNF called out
> in Section 3.1.1.
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
> http://ewellic.org<http://ewellic.org/> | @DougEwell
> -------- Original Message --------
> On Mon Jan 13 07:50:07 CET 2014,
> "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:
> > As the shepherd for RFC 6067 (see
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6067/writeup/), I thought I'd make
> > you aware of the issue below. Please send a message to IANA
> > <iana at iana.org> with the update record below (removing the
> > quotations) and the explanation that this is done because it was found
> > that one of the lines is longer than allowed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages