Subject: Re: [Ltru] Ltru Digest, Vol 71, Issue 15

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:52:39 -0600

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co uk> wrote:

> I am reading BCP47 with regard to the rules for sending IANA info on 
> extension subtags.  The wording is not clear.  Does the paragraph 
> (below) mean that every time there is a new part to an extension 
> mechanism that the maintaining authority sends this to IANA? Or does 
> it mean that just the details of (in the case) the -t singleton are 
> sent to IANA?

The former.  Once the extension itself is registered, IANA has no 
further business with it, unless the extension is maintained (e-mail 
addresses of URL changed) or repealed.

> I think, taking in the comments from Karen, Doug and others, what I 
> may be happier with in the current scenario (Unicode as maintaining 
> authority) is if we could include within the RFC

You do realize that you just said "let's amend BCP 47 again."

> an obligation for Unicode to post any requests for subtags relating to 
> the -t extension to the ietf-languages list for discussion, in 
> addition to their own internal discussions,

I wish they would, out of courtesy.  But that's why Section 3.7 requires 
the maintaining authority to include a contact e-mail address and a 
mailing list address, and indeed why a mailing list has to exist.  (This 
was my concern about the 'iso8601' subtag in the -u- extension: I 
couldn't find that it was discussed on the CLDR mailing list, which (if 
true) would be exploiting a loophole in BCP 47 that the mailing list 
actually be used for something.)

> and that the opinions of the participants on this (aforementioned) 
> list carry the same weight as they do within IETF.

I don't think there's any way to regulate that.  I suspect some people 
on ietf-languages already may not feel the weights are equal.

> Protection for IETF participants would come via the IESG (in that IETF 
> participants can ask that the role of maintaining authority for the -t 
> extension be taken from Unicode if their views are not considered 
> appropriately).  Also, the resulting -t extension subtag record should 
> be posted to ietf-languages once agreed.

At least they could post an announcement with a link.  I think that 
would not be asking too much.

> Further, the registry should be mirrored by IANA and linked to the 
> subtag registry.

That's why the extensions registry (the "index" that is maintained by 
IANA) includes a URL to the registry.  And again, that's something I 
don't like about -t- and continue not to like about -u-: there is no 
registry.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell