John,
Harald, while I agree in principle, I would suggest that some of
the comments Eric, Bill, and others have pointed out call for
the beginnings of an evaluation of your experiment. I further
suggest that evaluation is appropriate at almost any time, once
data start to come in.
First a
Hi Leslie,
I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying...
I'm not nearly so worried, on that front,
about the small donations front, as I am about the overall
principles of identifying IETF donations and achieving
some model for dependent sustainability.
What do you mean by dependent
--On fredag, desember 17, 2004 11:49:04 -0500 William Allen Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, here's my promise to you. I'll track down McGregor, and we'll
write something up. I will work on moving my Proposed Standards,
assuming that the IESG is actually _interested_ in doing its job.
The
No disagreement on any of this. I was just responding to what
I took to be suggestions that in-flight partial evaluation was
inappropriate.
john
--On Saturday, 18 December, 2004 04:23 -0500 Scott W Brim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 11:47:10AM -0500, John C Klensin
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, desember 17, 2004 11:49:04 -0500 William Allen Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, here's my promise to you. I'll track down McGregor, and we'll
write something up. I will work on moving my Proposed Standards,
assuming that the IESG is actually
Date: 2004-12-14 16:01
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The grandfathered production in the RFC 3066bis ABNF is intended only
for the 24 entries (not 46, as I wrote earlier) that are carried over
from the RFC 3066 registry and that don't otherwise conform to the
Date: 2004-12-15 14:41
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
How is it possible to predict ahead of time what is the worst-case
length for a RFC3066-registered language tag?
In some contexts, the length is limited by the context
(e.g.
Bruce == Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce If there really are only 24 items of less than 11 octets
Bruce each, a trivial solution is to simply list them (with the
Bruce usual ABNF syntax) as literal strings. That should take no
Bruce more than a half-dozen lines.
Date: 2004-12-15 13:22
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The current process does *not* limit the length of non-private-use
tags.
It does by way of reviewer, community, and IETF Area
Director review.
But absolutely nothing except his good sense
I don't have any comment on the issue of language tags, but speaking as a
reasonably avid ABNF hacker, I agree with Sam, and would not want to
establish a convention that ABNF in IETF RFCs is expected to be precise.
One MUST read the text to understand what the limits of the syntax are.
This is
One nit: There won't really be IETF donations. All of the fund
raising will be done through ISOC, so all of the donations will be
ISOC donations. Some of those donations may be designated to a
particular ISOC activity (such as the IASA or a particular
educational or public policy project),
I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some
total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change).
Earlier feedback would have been had if there had been
some announcement of the proposed considerable changes
on the ietf-822 mailing list, or via an IETF WG
charter.
This
PROTECTED]
Sent: 20041218 15:41
To: Bruce Lilly
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some
total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change).
Earlier
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Addison
Phillips [wM]
Sent: 20041218 16:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Lilly
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
We (Mark
14 matches
Mail list logo
