doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4645.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4645.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d474d60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4645.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                      D. Ewell, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 4645                                    Consultant
+Category: Informational                                   September 2006
+
+
+                    Initial Language Subtag Registry
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+Abstract
+
+   This memo defined the initial contents of the IANA Language Subtag
+   Registry for use in forming tags for the identification of languages.
+   Since the contents of this memo only served as a starting point for
+   the registry, its actual contents have been removed before
+   publication to avoid confusion.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................2
+   2. Initialization of the Registry ..................................2
+   3. Initial Registry Contents .......................................5
+   4. Omitted Code Elements ...........................................5
+   5. Security Considerations .........................................5
+   6. IANA Considerations .............................................5
+   7. References ......................................................6
+      7.1. Normative References .......................................6
+      7.2. Informative References .....................................6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ewell                        Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4645            Initial Language Subtag Registry      September 2006
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   [RFC4646] provides for a Language Subtag Registry and describes its
+   format.  This memo defines the initial contents of the IANA Language
+   Subtag Registry, using the criteria described in Section 2.
+
+   The Language Subtag Registry is formatted in a modified record-jar
+   text format, as described in [record-jar].  The specific format of
+   the registry, and the definition and intended purpose of each of the
+   fields, are described in [RFC4646].
+
+   The registry is expected to change over time, as new subtags are
+   registered and existing subtags are modified or deprecated.  The
+   process of updating the registry is described in Section 3 of
+   [RFC4646].  This memo does not define the permanent contents of the
+   registry and should not be represented as doing so.
+
+   Many of the subtags defined in this registry are based on code
+   elements defined in [ISO639-1], [ISO639-2], [ISO15924], [ISO3166-1],
+   and [UN_M.49].  This registry is not a mirror of the code lists
+   defined by these standards and should not be used as one.
+
+2.  Initialization of the Registry
+
+   Section 3.7 of [RFC4646] requires that the LTRU working group create
+   an initial version of the Language Subtag Registry and populate it
+   with the initial set of subtags.  This involves converting the
+   entries from the existing IANA language tag registry defined by
+   [RFC3066] to the new format, as well as defining valid subtags from
+   various source standards.  This section describes the process that
+   was used to create the initial registry entries.
+
+   The initial set of records was based on the following standards:
+   [ISO639-1], [ISO639-2], [ISO15924], and [ISO3166-1].  The following
+   criteria were used to select and format the records of the subtags
+   included in the initial Language Subtag Registry (hereafter "ILSR"):
+
+      1.  For each source standard, the date of the standard referenced
+          in [RFC1766] was selected as the starting date.  Code elements
+          that were valid on that date in the selected standard were
+          added to the ILSR.  Code elements that were previously
+          assigned, but that were vacated or withdrawn before that date,
+          were not added to the ILSR.
+
+      2.  For each successive change to the standard, any additional
+          assignments up to the date of the adoption of [RFC4646] were
+          added to the ILSR.  Values that have been withdrawn are marked
+          as deprecated, but not removed.  Changes in meaning or
+
+
+
+Ewell                        Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4645            Initial Language Subtag Registry      September 2006
+
+
+          assignment of a subtag were permitted during this process (for
+          example, the [ISO3166-1] code element 'CS' was originally
+          assigned to Czechoslovakia and is now assigned to Serbia and
+          Montenegro).
+
+   Code elements from [UN_M.49] were also included in the ILSR using the
+   criteria above, with the following additional rules:
+
+      3.  UN numeric code elements assigned to "macro-geographical
+          (continental)" regions as of the date of adoption of [RFC4646]
+          were added to the ILSR and thereby made valid for use in
+          language tags.
+
+      4.  The UN numeric code elements for "economic groupings" or
+          "other groupings," and the alphanumeric code elements in
+          Appendix X of the UN document, were not added to the ILSR.
+
+      5.  The UN numeric code elements for countries or areas not
+          associated with an assigned [ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code element
+          were not added to the ILSR.  These values are listed in
+          Section 4 and may be requested for registration by individuals
+          using the process defined in [RFC4646] and according to the
+          rules described therein.  Listing of these code elements in
+          this section is not a guarantee of future registration.
+
+      6.  Code elements that were withdrawn, vacated, or deprecated from
+          [UN_M.49] as of the date of adoption of [RFC4646] were not
+          added to the ILSR.
+
+   Using the initial set of subtags described above, the tags in the
+   [RFC3066] registry were evaluated as follows:
+
+      7.  Tags in the [RFC3066] registry that were not deprecated,
+          consisted entirely of subtags already in this document, and
+          have the correct form and format for tags defined by [RFC4646]
+          were converted to records of type "redundant" in the ILSR.
+          For example, "zh-Hant" is now defined by [RFC4646] because
+          'zh' is an [ISO639-1] code element and 'Hant' is an [ISO15924]
+          code element, and both are defined as subtags in the ILSR.
+
+      8.  Tags in the [RFC3066] registry that contained one or more
+          subtags that either did not match the valid registration
+          pattern or were not otherwise defined by [RFC4646] were
+          converted to corresponding records of type "grandfathered" in
+          the ILSR.  These records cannot become type "redundant" except
+          by revision of [RFC4646], but may have a "Deprecated" and
+
+
+
+
+
+Ewell                        Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4645            Initial Language Subtag Registry      September 2006
+
+
+          "Preferred-Value" field added to them if a subsequent subtag
+          assignment or combination of assignments renders the tag
+          obsolete.
+
+      9.  Tags in the [RFC3066] registry that had a notation that they
+          were deprecated were converted to records of type
+          "grandfathered" in the ILSR.  The record for the grandfathered
+          entry contains a "Deprecated" field with the most appropriate
+          date that can be determined for when the [RFC3066] record was
+          deprecated.  The "Comments" field may optionally contain a
+          reason for the deprecation.  The "Preferred-Value" field
+          contains a tag that replaces the value.  For example, the
+          [RFC3066] tag "art-lojban" is deprecated and thus appears as a
+          grandfathered tag in the ILSR.  Its "Deprecated" field
+          contains the deprecation date (in this case "2003-09-02") and
+          the "Preferred-Value" field the value "jbo".
+
+      10. The remaining tags in the [RFC3066] registry are not
+          deprecated and have a format consistent with language tags as
+          defined by [RFC4646] but contain subtags that are not defined
+          in the ILSR.  These subtags are eligible for registration as
+          variants.  The ILSR contains appropriate variant records for
+          the following list of subtags, and the registered [RFC3066]
+          tags containing these subtags were entered into the ILSR as
+          type "redundant":
+
+          1901 (use with Prefix: de)
+
+          1996 (use with Prefix: de)
+
+          nedis (use with Prefix: sl)
+
+          rozaj (use with Prefix: sl)
+
+      11. All remaining [RFC3066] registered tags were converted to
+          records of type "grandfathered" in the ILSR.  Interested
+          parties may use the registration process in [RFC4646] to
+          attempt to register the variant subtags not already present in
+          the Language Subtag Registry.  If all of the subtags in the
+          original tag become fully defined by the resulting
+          registrations, then the original tag is superseded.  Such tags
+          will have their record changed from type "grandfathered" to
+          type "redundant" in the registry.  Note that previous approval
+          of a tag under [RFC3066] is not a guarantee of approval of a
+          variant subtag under [RFC4646].  The existing [RFC3066] tag
+          maintains its validity, but the original reason for its
+          registration might have become obsolete.
+
+
+
+
+Ewell                        Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4645            Initial Language Subtag Registry      September 2006
+
+
+3.  Initial Registry Contents
+
+   The remainder of this section specified the initial set of records
+   for the registry.  This material was deleted on publication of this
+   memo, to avoid any potential confusion with the registry itself.  The
+   IANA language subtag registry can be found at
+   <http://www.iana.org/numbers.html> under "Language Tags".
+
+4.  Omitted Code Elements
+
+   The following code elements from [UN_M.49] were not associated with
+   [ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code elements.  Consequently, they were not
+   assigned as subtags in the initial Language Subtag Registry, but were
+   valid candidates for registration as region subtags, using the
+   process in [RFC4646]:
+
+      830   Channel Islands
+      831   Guernsey
+      832   Jersey
+      833   Isle of Man
+
+   The last three became ineligible for registration in April, 2006,
+   when the [ISO3166-1] code elements GG, JE, and IM were assigned as
+   region subtags.
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document specifies the initial contents to be used by IANA in
+   populating the Language Subtag Registry.  For security considerations
+   relevant to that registry and the use of language tags, see
+   [RFC4646].
+
+6.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document points to the initial content for the Language Subtag
+   Registry which is maintained by the IANA.  The IANA language subtag
+   registry can be found at <http://www.iana.org/numbers.html> under
+   "Language Tags".  For details on the procedures for the format and
+   ongoing maintenance of this registry, see [RFC4646].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ewell                        Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4645            Initial Language Subtag Registry      September 2006
+
+
+7.  References
+
+7.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC4646]     Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for
+                 Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 4646, September
+                 2006.
+
+7.2.  Informative References
+
+   [ISO15924]    International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
+                 15924:2004.  Information and documentation -- Codes for
+                 the representation of names of scripts", January 2004.
+
+   [ISO3166-1]   International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
+                 3166:1988.  Codes for the representation of names of
+                 countries, 3rd edition", August 1988.
+
+   [ISO639-1]    International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
+                 639-1:2002.  Codes for the representation of names of
+                 languages -- Part 1: Alpha-2 code", 2002.
+
+   [ISO639-2]    International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
+                 639-2:1998.  Codes for the representation of names of
+                 languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code, first edition",
+                 1998.
+
+   [RFC1766]     Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
+                 Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.
+
+   [RFC3066]     Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
+                 Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
+
+   [UN_M.49]     Statistics Division, United Nations, "Standard Country
+                 or Area Codes for Statistical Use", UN Standard Country
+                 or Area Codes for Statistical Use, Revision 4 (United
+                 Nations publication, Sales No. 98.XVII.9, June 1999.
+
+   [record-jar]  Raymond, E., "The Art of Unix Programming", 2003.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Doug Ewell (Editor)
+   Consultant
+
+   EMail: dewell@adelphia.net
+   URI:   http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell
+
+
+
+
+Ewell                        Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 4645            Initial Language Subtag Registry      September 2006
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+   retain all their rights.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
+   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
+   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
+   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
+   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ewell                        Informational                      [Page 7]
+