From: Doug Ewell (dewell@roadrunner.com)
Date: Tue Oct 09 2007 - 01:07:57 CDT
Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> As you are the signing author of this draft, why isn't it split into
> two separate drafts:
> * this file without section 3 (that makes most of its content but is
> intended to be deleted upon publication)
> * section 3 as a draft for the updated registry itself?
The short answer is: "Any discussion of... anything... about the effort
to update BCP 47, should be directed to the LTRU mailing list."
The slightly longer answer is: Draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-02 is structured
the way it is for very many, very specific reasons. Some of them have
to do with the way RFCs are REQUIRED to be structured, and some with the
decisions made by the co-chairs of the LTRU Working Group, a group that
is chartered within the IETF and REQUIRED to act in certain ways.
Do not think you can read two or three e-mail messages about the LTRU
effort and immediately understand its goals and history, and fire off a
pseudo-knowledgeable response, as you have with Unicode and so many
other subjects. Your lack of familiarity with the subject is screaming
from the rooftops.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 09 2007 - 01:11:12 CDT