[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.

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.

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?

    (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.