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

[Peter Constable]

>It *is* meant to grumble informally about two things:

>a. Calling these change requests "corrections"

Clearly he means modifications.


>b. Staying quiet during the last week or so of the review period just
completed, and then immediately proposing these changes, with no notice
that this was the strategy. We thought we were done.

For my part, I'm quite glad that he did things the way he did. He has valid reason for wanting to continue discussion of the prefix, but it was harmful to some users to keep holding the initial registration of the subtract hostage.


Peter

Sent from my IBM 3277/APL
________________________________
From: Doug Ewell<mailto:doug at ewellic.org>
Sent: ‎5/‎16/‎2015 8:18 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion<mailto:ietf-languages at iana.org>
Subject: Re: Second correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - widening to 'pt'

Luc Pardon 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?

No, it is not meant to object formally to either of your requests. You
may remember I agreed with you that all of the Portuguese variants
should have had simply "Prefix: pt". Tags aren't supposed to be required
to include the region simply because the content "is" Brazilian
Portuguese (for example), only when it is considered important to
specify that it is.

I don't know anywhere enough about Galician to comment on that request.

It *is* meant to grumble informally about two things:

a. Calling these change requests "corrections" as if the registrations
just completed were in error.

b. Staying quiet during the last week or so of the review period just
completed, and then immediately proposing these changes, with no notice
that this was the strategy. We thought we were done.

> In any case, a) the wording "correction(s)" does not appear in the
> proposed forms themselves (one says "modification", the other says
> "change request"),

Of course it doesn't. I know the forms pretty well by now. You had
written "Below is a registration form to request [yet] another
correction to the current registration of 'ao1990'" in each of your two
messages.

Maybe this use of "correction" is a matter of non-native English, in
which case I apologize.

> and b) BCP47 explicitly allows prefix changes after registration.

Of course it does, as long as they are widening changes, which yours
are. Section 3.1.8.

> 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.

Yeah, I don't know what Michael meant. Perhaps he thinks this is the
right approach *now that* the initial registration has completed.

Anyway, let the Portuguese debate resume. The review periods for these
two requests (individually) should go through Friday, May 29, unless
there are changes that extend them.

--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20150517/b7cf6120/attachment-0001.html>