Current requests (was: Re: Third correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - addition of 'gl')

Peter Constable petercon at
Tue May 19 17:19:32 CEST 2015

For my part, I support all three changes.


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:doug at] 
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 9:35 PM
To: Peter Constable; ietf-languages
Subject: Current requests (was: Re: Third correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - addition of 'gl')

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.


    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.


    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.


    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 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list