Current requests

Luc Pardon lucp at
Tue May 19 16:23:25 CEST 2015

Thanks for mapping out the road ahead so clearly, Doug.

For my part I can live with the risk of some extra delay(s).

Throwing in more sets of forms "just in case" (which is not what I think
you're advocating btw) would only complicate things and bring risks of
its own.

Therefore I'd prefer to let the review run its course, see how things
unfold, and consider appropriate action only if and when needed.

Luc Pardon

On 19-05-15 06:35, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Peter Constable wrote:
>> Is there a requested change to the LST registry that you deem now to
>> be formally in review? If so, please clarify what it does or not
>> include β€” preferably without using "second" or "third".
> I'll try again. There are three requested changes currently in review.
> Each request adds something to the one before, so they are not mutually
> exclusive.
> 1.
>    I wrote this on May 13. The request is to fix the spelling of
> "Portuguese" in the Description.
>    Michael has already approved this one (May 15), although that is not
> final until the review period ends May 27.
> 2.
>    Luc wrote this on May 15. It includes the spelling correction from
> (1) above, and also replaces the three language-region Prefix fields
> with "Prefix: pt".
>    There is no proposed record for this one, only a registration form,
> but Luc or I could easily bang one out and send it to the list if
> desired. Assuming that is done by May 22, the review period ends May 29.
> 3.
>    Luc also wrote this on May 15. It includes the two changes from (1)
> and (2) above, and adds a new Prefix field, "Prefix: gl".
>    The review period for this also ends May 29.
> So the choices that have forms supporting them are:
> a. Make no change at all
> b. Make change 1 only
> c. Make changes 1 and 2
> d. Make changes 1, 2, and 3
> In other words, there are no documents under review to (say) make
> changes 1 and 3 (fix the spelling and add "gl") but not to make change 2
> (replace three "pt-XX" prefixes with "pt"). If Michael wanted that
> option, and he has not said anything yet, someone would need to post
> forms for that combination, and the review period would start when they
> were posted and run for two weeks.
> I know this is complicated and cumbersome and bureaucratic, but we did
> want all of this to be traceable. Does this explanation make more sense?
> -- 
> Doug Ewell | | Thornton, CO πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list