Missed "Added" field for pahawh2, pahawh3, pahawh4 variants
doug at ewellic.org
Sat Jan 21 19:13:16 CET 2017
Dave Pifke wrote:
> The entries for pahawh2, pahawh3, and pahawh4 as they currently exist
> are missing this field.
> I assume this was an oversight and can be easily corrected.
This was my mistake. The proposed records I posted at  were missing
the Added field.
I was on vacation at the time, and the errors escaped the one-week
review period without being spotted (only the registration form requires
the full two weeks), but this was still my responsibility. Probably I
copied and pasted the records directly from the registration forms,
which never include an Added date (see Figure 5), and forgot to add it.
I was busy last night, but Amanda Baber at IANA figured out what needed
to be done, confirmed them with me, made the necessary changes, and
posted a corrected Registry around 7 pm local time on a Friday night.
This was definitely an "above and beyond" moment and I want to thank
Amanda for her dedication and expertise in getting this done.
> RFC 5646 section 3.1.2. Record and Field Definitions states that each
> entry in the registry MUST contain at least one instance of Added.
Actually, the spec is a bit loose here: every entry must have *exactly*
one Added field. It would make no sense for a record to have two; I'd
consider that a structural error.
> I have some Go code which downloads and parses the registry. If
> there's interest, I'd be happy to submit an automated test suite to
> catch these sorts of errors prior to publication.
That would be a good question for IANA, since we I don't see the updated
Registry before it gets published. Sometimes I mock one up and compare
it with the released version when it is published, but I didn't do that
this time, and in any case I didn't run it through my validation tool as
Dave (thankfully) did.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
More information about the Ietf-languages