>> This draft does not address at least one issue raised in WGLC. It also
>> contains substantial changes made after the close of WGLC that have
>> received too little attention from the WG. Accordingly, I continue to
>> oppose publication of this document[1]. I suggest that the IESG refer it
Tom.Petch wrote:
> I think that there have been rather more problems in areas that are less in
> the
> public view, supporting the more private parts of the operation.
This community has been moving relentlessly towards a complete loss of any
sense
of propriety.
So I guess it was inevitable
Hi Elwyn,
Thanks for the detailed review. Appreciate it.
The latest draft that we published (-11) should address
your comments. Please see inline.
Regards
Sri
> -Original Message-
> From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:11 PM
> To: General
- Original Message -
From: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dan York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Bill Fenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF discussion list"
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Transition status (was Re: ISO 3166 m
