Second correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - widening to 'pt'

Luc Pardon lucp at
Sat May 16 09:53:30 CEST 2015

On 15-05-15 19:56, Doug Ewell wrote:

> I guess my objection is to calling these changes "corrections" when they
> were at the heart of the lengthy debate we had, and the Prefix fields
> that were finally registered were explicitly the ones Michael wanted.

1. I take it that this objection does not count (is not intended as) a
"significant objection raised on the list" that would prevent the two
prefix change requests from being approved?

In any case, a) the wording "correction(s)" does not appear in the
proposed forms themselves (one says "modification", the other says
"change request"), and b) BCP47 explicitly allows prefix changes after

2. To Andrew's statement "I'd prefer to [...] allow the registration to
proceed as is before opening up the debate over the prefix once more",
Michael replied "I concur".

Given that it can hardly have escaped his (Michael's) attention that the
registration has completed, I take that to mean he has no objection
against the debate being reopened now.

3. Please correct me if I'm wrong on either 1 or 2 above. The last thing
we need is further confusion or ambiguity.

Luc Pardon

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list