Update to the Language Subtag Registry
draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10

[Ballot comment]
I don't think the use of the RFC 2119 boilerplate is appropriate.
AFAICS, the only use of such language is in instructions to the RFC Editor and the IANA. These instructions will be removed before publication and so the boilerplate is redundant and should be removed.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm a bit confused about this document, which we can probably clear up before the call: This is a -bis document that neither obsoletes (as would be expected) or updates (as maybe hinted in the abstract?) the original RFC4645. So what exactly is the relation to RFC4645?

[Ballot comment]
From IDnits:

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1766
    (Obsoleted by RFC 3066, RFC 3282)

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3066
    (Obsoleted by RFC 4646, RFC 4647)

[Note]: 'Please read 4646bis before reviewing this document.
Martin Dürst is the document shepherd. This document, as a draft, includes ''bis'' in its name because it is a second version of RFC 4645. However, it is not a direct update of RFC 4645. RFC 4645 served to initialize the Language Subtag Registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry). This document re-initializes the Language Subtag Registry based on the initial state of the registry from RFC 4645, the updates to the registry made in the meantime, and the additions and changes made by the work on 4646bis (which is a true update of RFC 4646).
' added by Alexey Melnikov

IANA comments:

IANA understands that a single action is required upon publication.

IANA understands that the intent of this Internet Draft is to
replace the entire contents of the Language Subtag Registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry with
the appropriately marked contents of Section 3.

In addition, IANA understands that no changes are to be made to
the Registration Templates repository at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/index.html
or to the Language Tag Extensions Registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tag-extensions-registry.

IANA understands that the replacement of the Language Subtag
Registry and its reference to RFC4646 is the only action required of
IANA upon publication.

[Note]: 'Martin Dürst is the document shepherd. This document, as a draft, includes ''bis'' in its name because it is a second version of RFC 4645. However, it is not a direct update of RFC 4645. RFC 4645 served to initialize the Language Subtag Registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry). This document re-initializes the Language Subtag Registry based on the initial state of the registry from RFC 4645, the updates to the registry made in the meantime, and the additions and changes made by the work on 4646bis (which is a true update of RFC 4646).
' added by Alexey Melnikov

[Note]: 'Martin Dürst is the document shepherd.

This document, as a draft, includes ''bis'' in its name because it is a second version of RFC 4645. However, it is not a direct update of RFC 4645. RFC 4645 served to initialize the Language Subtag Registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry). This document re-initializes the Language Subtag Registry based on the initial state of the registry from RFC 4645, the updates to the registry made in the meantime, and the additions and changes made by the work on 4646bis (which is a true update of RFC 4646).
' added by Alexey Melnikov

    (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Martin Duerst (duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp, LTRU WG co-chair)

          Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Yes, I have personally reviewed it, and concluded that this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for

    (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?

Yes. Due to its nature, the bulk of the document has mostly been
'reviewed' by cross-checking programs.

                                      Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

No.

    (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No. The document mainly contains public data, which isn't security-
relevant. The considerable increase in size of the IANA registry has
been discussed directly with IANA.

    (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

There are no specific concerns or issues that I would know of.

    (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

I don't have any doubt that the WG as a whole understands it and
agrees it, because it makes available several thousand new language
subtags for languages which up to now cannot be tagged. For some
issues (e.g. the treatment of extlangs), there has been intense
discussion with diametrally opposing positions, but we were able
to find a solution that was acceptable to everybody.

    (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

Yes.

    (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits? (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes for ID nits. MIB, media type, URI considerations don't apply.

    (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state? If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes for the split. No for unclear or downward references.

    (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document? If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document provides content for an actual update of the IANA Language
Subtag Registry. The details are clearly spelled out in the IANA section,
and the most crucial aspects of this update have already been discussed
with IANA.

    (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

The bulk of the document is in a format defined in draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis.
I haven't verified this myself, but several members of the WG have,
with their own tools.

    (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?

[there is no need for a question mark here :-]

                                Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:
          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.
          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?
          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
            what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
            review, on what date was the request posted?

This memo defines the procedure used to update the IANA Language
Subtag Registry in conjunction with the publication of
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis [NOTE: replace with actual RFC number],
for use in forming tags for identifying languages. As an Internet-Draft,
it also contained a complete replacement of the contents of the Registry
to be used by IANA in updating it. This update adds several thousand
language codes to the registry, which will allow these languages to
be identified appropriately on the Internet. To prevent confusion, the
actual registry contents was removed before publication as an RFC.

The WG process for this document was mostly smooth and revolving
around details. This document also reflects changes defined in
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis, which are disussed in a separate writeup.

The data contained in the document when it was an Internet Draft
has been read and processed by several tools the implement parsing
of the registry format and additional operations on this data.