Process (was: RE: New forms for 'ao1990')

Andrew Glass (WINDOWS) Andrew.Glass at
Thu May 7 19:59:00 CEST 2015

Thanks Doug.

I approve the changes in the latest version of these requests.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 10:42 AM
To: Phillips, Addison; Michael Everson; Peter Constable
Cc: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Process (was: RE: New forms for 'ao1990')

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

> I should think that it would be obvious since the last revision was 
> written by me. Doug forwarded the documents to me as always and I 
> forwarded them.

Addison and Peter are right, Michael. You have to state on the list that you are taking Action A or B or C. It really shouldn't be a matter of inference and deduction. That's why we added all the new wording about "MUST explicitly accept or reject the request" on page 45 of RFC 5646, which wasn't there in RFC 4646.

Actually, there's another aspect of Section 3.5 that we didn't follow for these Portuguese variant requests:

"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."

All three of these requests were modified substantially by others (including me) after Andrew Glass originally posted them on March 16, either to change the description or the prefixes or the comments or the references or something else, but we didn't get Andrew's explicit approval on most or all of them. These requests are going into the archives with his name on them, and he may not have approved of the changes at all. We need to do a better job in the future circling back with the original requester, even for clerical fixes, which these certainly weren't.

All of the requirements in RFC 5646 are there for a reason.

Doug Ewell | | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list