The text looks fine to me as well. --Jari
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I have seen very little disagreement on the intent of the words in the
paragraphs I quoted, but quite a bit of wordsmithing. So let's try
again.
The members of the IAOC shall select one of
[note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document]
Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions
(you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file):
RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change
RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission
RFC 3934 -
Harald,
Using these --and my recent experience with
draft-klensin-ip-service-terms, which is still in the RFC
Editor's queue-- as examples, let me suggest that advancing all
of them is still consistent with what I took Dave to be
suggesting. In each case, there was evidence of a problem that
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:
Dear John,
thank you to acknowledge that the proposed draft _impose_ something !
It therefore do not report on an existing practice.
thank you to acknowledge that the proposed draft even _limits_ the
current practice !
thank you to explain that the decision of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
What would be really nice is to specify a parameterized matching
algorithm (or more precisely, an algorithm family) along the lines
of the stringprep family of string normalization algorithms. But
I'm unsure if there's sufficient time and interest available to do
John C Klensin scripsit:
In RFC 3066, it is only a heuristic (or examination of the
IANA registry, which is not machine-parseable) that tells the
meaning of the second subtag the existing registered tag
sr-Latn. In the draft, its meaning is unambiguously specified
a priori.
So?
So
I think this line of thought has died down without any great
disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence:
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services as
members of the IAOC.
belongs in the
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:59:19 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
In each case, there was evidence of a problem that
some people felt was worth solving.
My comments were in response to an explicit statement that the community
doesn't care much and my comments included the statement A standards
Hi.
I've just reviewed the last 48 hours of these threads and a very
high volume of associated postings, many or most of them after
the Last Call formally closed and the tracking system
automatically moved the status of the document into the waiting
for AD state. While Ted Hardie and his
On 1/7/2005 10:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
I think this line of thought has died down without any great
disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence:
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
exceptional reimbursement of
Peter == Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] It occurs to me that a
Last Call for an independent submission has an
Peter added
requirement to satisfy, namely that the community supports
adoption of
Peter the work.
We
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this line of thought has died down without any great
disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence:
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
exceptional reimbursement of expenses)
--On Friday, 07 January, 2005 16:56 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this line of thought has died down without any great
disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following
sentence:
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart
Sam == Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald I think this line of thought has died down without any
Harald great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the
Harald following sentence:
Harald The IAOC
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 18:16, ext Scott W Brim wrote:
On 1/7/2005 10:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
I think this line of thought has died down without any great
disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence:
The IAOC members shall not receive any
An important point of which the IETF list members may not be aware is
that this work has been carried out as an informal IETF/W3C/Unicode
collaboration. For example:
- Addison Phillips (co-author) is the Chair of the W3C I18N WG
- Mark Davis (co-author) is the President of the Unicode
*bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the exceptional events
occur.
The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses
and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only.
At 11:32 AM 1/7/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 07
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
I'd like
to suggest that everyone voluntarily declare a cooling-off
period...
Please don't try to
answer that question today, especially on the IETF list.
I'll respect that request. I'll only
Harald,
This does not discuss the language tags comment. This case however provides
some experience. The real problem I see is the increased need of Practice
Documentation. RFC 3066 is a BCP yet it introduces issues (and the proposed
RFC 3066bis does more) which are not established but proposed
--On Friday, 07 January, 2005 12:00 -0500 Michael StJohns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the
exceptional events occur.
The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement
of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for
Looking at the recent announcements of I-Ds, I think we will get a
substantial number of URI/URL related drafts in the coming months which
will also test this procedure. Their revision numbers are clocking up
so they are being discussed but not AFAICS on any IETF-related list. And
these seem to
At 6:07 PM +0100 1/7/05, Tom Petch wrote:
Looking at the recent announcements of I-Ds, I think we will get a
substantial number of URI/URL related drafts in the coming months which
will also test this procedure. Their revision numbers are clocking up
so they are being discussed but not AFAICS on
Michael,
Your proposed text is OK for me.
--Jari
Michael StJohns wrote:
*bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the exceptional
events occur.
The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses
and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:46:41 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The usual case for an individual submission is, I think:
- there are a number of people who see a need for it
- there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work
on it
- nobody's significantly
Dear Ted,
the experience of this Last Call shown the problem comes from the diversity
of the internet. You may feel that a proposed solution is minor in your
area and not realize that it has a big impact in others areas. This is why
WGs are important: their Charters are the only place for some
25 matches
Mail list logo
