Tags for Identifying Languages
RFC 5646
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-08-14 |
23 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag) |
2015-10-14 |
23 | (System) | Notify list changed from ltru-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis@ietf.org to (None) |
2009-09-08 |
23 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2009-09-08 |
23 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5646 BCP 0047 ' added by Amy Vezza |
2009-09-04 |
23 | (System) | RFC published |
2009-08-06 |
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-08-06 |
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-08-06 |
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-07-30 |
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-06-25 |
23 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2009-06-25 |
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-06-25 |
23 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-06-25 |
23 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-06-25 |
23 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-06-19 |
23 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 |
2009-06-18 |
23 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-06-17 |
23 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-06-17 |
23 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2009-06-17 |
23 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2009-06-17 |
23 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-06-17 |
23 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-06-17 |
23 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2009-06-17 |
23 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2009-06-17 |
23 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-06-16 |
23 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-06-16 |
23 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot comment] The reference to 2028 isn't normative. That reference merely describes the IESG. The reference to 2026 is normative because the process defined here … [Ballot comment] The reference to 2028 isn't normative. That reference merely describes the IESG. The reference to 2026 is normative because the process defined here builds on a process defined in 2026. The reference to 2277 isn't normative. It's documentation of how a decision was made, not required "to implement" or even to understand langtags. |
2009-06-16 |
23 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-16 |
23 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot comment] I'm very happy to see that Klingon is supported ;-) |
2009-06-16 |
23 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-06-16 |
23 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-15 |
23 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-06-11 |
23 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23.txt |
2009-06-11 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2009-06-11 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-06-11 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-06-11 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-06-08 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | Waiting for some issues to be resolved by the WG before the end of this week. If they are not resolved, I will remove the … Waiting for some issues to be resolved by the WG before the end of this week. If they are not resolved, I will remove the document from the June 18th telechat. |
2009-06-08 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-05-29 |
23 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Carl Wallace. |
2009-05-27 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-05-19 |
23 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2009-05-19 |
22 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-22.txt |
2009-05-12 |
23 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: NOTE: IANA would like to talk to the authors/ADs about other options for announcing registry updates (as opposed to the proposed "ietf-languages-announcements@iana.org" mailing … IANA comments: NOTE: IANA would like to talk to the authors/ADs about other options for announcing registry updates (as opposed to the proposed "ietf-languages-announcements@iana.org" mailing list). IANA understands that, upon publication of this document, no IMMEDIATE actions need to be completed. However, IANA has two questions about the existing templates and extensions registries currently published by IANA. IANA understands that the current document provides a procedure for inserting or replacing whole records in the Language Subtag Registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry. IANA further understands that all future modifications to the Language Subtag Registry will be done through the template defined in section 3.5 (Figure 5). Review of the template will be completed by an IESG-appointed Language Subtag Reviewer. When IANA is asked to update this registry in the future, IANA understands that it will be given preformatted content to insert in the registry according to the instructions in section 3.3. IANA further understands that any template submitted and approved in this manner will be archived and made publicly available at http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/. IANA understands that multiple registrations can pertain to the same record in the registry. Furthermore, IANA understands that, at a future date, the IESG may request that new records be inserted into the Language Tag Extensions Registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tag-extensions-registry If this happens the IESG will provide the record to be inserted in the exact format described in section 3.7. IANA also notes that there may be occasional requests from the maintaining authority for a specific extension to update the contact information or URLs in the records located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tag-extensions- registry. If this happens, the requests will include the complete, updated record. IANA understands that it is not responsible for validating the information provided, only its format. IANA will make an effort to ascertain that the request comes from the maintaining authority named in the record present in the registry. IANA has the following questions for the authors: 1] What should be done with the existing registry of templates at http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/index.html? 2] What should be done with the existing (but empty) Language Tag Extension Registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tag-extensions-registry? |
2009-04-27 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-04-27 |
23 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-04-16 |
23 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2009-04-16 |
23 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2009-04-13 |
23 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2009-04-13 |
23 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2009-04-11 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-04-11 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | Last Call was requested by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-04-11 |
23 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-04-11 |
23 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-04-11 |
23 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-04-09 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: 'Martin Dürst is the document shepherd. ' added by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-03-26 |
23 | Alexey Melnikov | Responsible AD has been changed to Alexey Melnikov from Chris Newman |
2009-03-09 |
23 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Martin Duerst (duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp, LTRU WG co-chair) … (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. 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. (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? Overall, I think the whole WG understands it and agrees with it. There were a few points where there was long-lasting disagreement and discussion, but for which we found solutions acceptable in all scenarios. The main such point was the treatment of extlangs. (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 updates the procedures for the IANA Language Subtag Registry (and the Language Tag Extension registry, which is mostly dormant). The document contains the following language: The Language Subtag Reviewer is appointed by the IESG for an indefinite term, subject to removal or replacement at the IESG's discretion. The IESG will solicit nominees for the position (upon adoption of this document or upon a vacancy) and then solicit feedback on the nominees' qualifications. Qualified candidates should be familiar with BCP 47 and its requirements; be willing to fairly, responsively, and judiciously administer the registration process; and be suitably informed about the issues of language identification so that the reviewer can assess the claims and draw upon the contributions of language experts and subtag requesters. The IESG will therefore have to solicit nominees for this position again when this document is adopted. (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 ABNF for language tags in Figure 1 in the previous draft (-20.txt) has passed http://www.fenron.com/~fenner/abnf.cgi without errors. There were no changes in the ABNF between -20 and -21, but www.fenron.com currently doesn't seem to be reachable. (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 document describes the structure, content, construction, and semantics of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to indicate the language used in an information object. It also describes how to register values for use in language tags and the creation of user-defined extensions for private interchange. This document is an update of RFC4646. The main change is the addition of thousands of three-letter language subtags for languages for which tagging was not possible up to now. Also, the registry format and procedures were adjusted to deal with this change, and to reflect experience from current practice. The WG process for this document was mostly smooth and revolving around details. There were some highly contentious issues, but for all of them, a solution was found that was acceptable to the involved parties and works for all scenarios identified. The IANA Language Subtag Registry, and the language tags that can be formed according to this document and its predecessor, are widely used across the Internet to identify languages, both in implementations (code) and in a wide range of data. |
2009-03-09 |
23 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-02-27 |
21 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.txt |
2008-12-11 |
20 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-20.txt |
2008-12-03 |
19 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-19.txt |
2008-11-01 |
18 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-18.txt |
2008-09-18 |
17 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17.txt |
2008-07-09 |
16 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-16.txt |
2008-06-10 |
15 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-15.txt |
2008-05-17 |
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-14.txt |
2008-04-30 |
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-13.txt |
2008-03-17 |
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-12.txt |
2007-12-14 |
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-11.txt |
2007-12-14 |
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-10.txt |
2007-11-15 |
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-09.txt |
2007-08-28 |
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-08.txt |
2007-08-01 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.txt |
2007-05-11 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-06.txt |
2007-05-01 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-05.txt |
2007-04-05 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-04.txt |
2007-03-29 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-03.txt |
2006-12-19 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02.txt |
2006-12-07 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt |
2006-09-12 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-00.txt |