Re: Small bibliography error in RFC 4930

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
 
> That's not an error. The references are correct as published for
> promotion to draft standard status.

At the moment you can reconstruct a 3066 registry by looking at
the redundant / grandfathered tags in the 4646 registry, and in
the source standards (i.e. the language and region subtags in the
4646 registry).

IOW just stay away from scripts, variants, and UN region numbers.

With the 4646bis registry it will be more convoluted, you'd also
have to stay away from 639-3 languages (+ extlangs, if any pop up).

Should 4646bis do something for protocols wishing to emulate the
old 3066 registry ?  We could flag the source of language tags in
the description field (just an idea).  Or add a how-to as appendix.

Frank