ltru Discussion Archive - Date Index

[Prev Page] [Next Page] [Thread Index] [IETF Mailing List Directory] [ltru List Information]

• May 16 2005
• Re: [Ltru] Issues [psg.com #982] through [psg.com #991], Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] Issues [psg.com #982] through [psg.com #991], Mark Davis
• [Ltru] [psg.com #985] Specify case rules for canonical tags, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Issues [psg.com #982] through [psg.com #991], Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: [WG I-D Submission] draft-ietf-ltru-matching-00, Martin Duerst
• May 16 2005
• [Ltru] Re: [WG I-D Submission] draft-ietf-ltru-matching-00, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [WG I-D Submission] draft-ietf-ltru-matching-00, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Open points before -02, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: Open points before -02, Frank Ellermann
• May 14 2005
• Re: [Ltru] New version of matching draft..., Randy Presuhn
• May 13 2005
• RE: [Ltru] New version of matching draft..., Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] New version of matching draft..., Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] New version of matching draft..., Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] RE: sad and afflicting (was [psg.com #969]character set considerations material is contradictory), Peter Constable
• [Ltru] Suspension of Jefsey until 2005-05-22, Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #964] section 3.4 of -00 is hard to understand, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] sad and afflicting (was [psg.com #969]character set considerations material is contradictory), JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] ltru issues 972-981, Randy Presuhn
• May 12 2005
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #967] address homograph issues insecurityconsiderations, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #969]character set considerations material is contradictory, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #970] add reference to xml schema version 1.0, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: Can someone map these comments into proposals?, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issuesinsecurityconsiderations, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issuesinsecurityconsi derations, McDonald, Ira
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issues insecurityconsiderations, Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issuesinsecurityconsiderations, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #964] section 3.4 of -00 is hard to understand, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issues insecurityconsiderations, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issues insecuritycons iderations, McDonald, Ira
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issuesinsecurityconsiderations, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #964] section 3.4 of -00 is hard to understand, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issues insecurityconsiderations, Misha Wolf
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issues in securityconsiderations, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #969]character set considerations material iscontradictory, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #964] section 3.4 of -00 is hard to understand, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #965] expectation of support for automated readingof registry, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #963] section on registration procedure is confusing, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issues in securityconsiderations, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #963] section on registration procedure is confusing, John Cowan
• RE: xml2rfc category (was RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] shouldintroduction alludetointendedbcp status?), Scott Hollenbeck
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, Erkki Kolehmainen
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, Erkki Kolehmainen
• [Ltru] [psg.com #970] add reference to xml schema version 1.0, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #969]character set considerations material is contradictory, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #968] load on IANA server by applications, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #967] address homograph issues in security considerations, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #966] remove something from security considerations, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #965] expectation of support for automated reading of registry, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #964] section 3.4 of -00 is hard to understand, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #963] section on registration procedure is confusing, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #962] use CAN instead of MAY in section 3.3 of -00, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #961] re-work part 3 of -00 draft, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Can someone map these comments into proposals?, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #958] move tag formation rules, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #959] consolidate review process instructions, Randy Presuhn
• Re: jamais deux sans trois ? (was RE: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations), JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #960] use ITU E.164 calling codes instead of ISO 3166 country codes, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: jamais deux sans trois ? (was RE: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations), Martin Duerst
• Re: [Ltru] Interim and Paris?, Randy Presuhn
• May 11 2005
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, Randy Presuhn
• Re: xml2rfc category (was RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction alludetointendedbcp status?), Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude tointendedbcp status?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, John Cowan
• RE: xml2rfc category (was RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] shouldintroduction alludetointendedbcp status?), Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #960] use ITU E.164 calling codes instead of ISO 3166 country codes, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] Interim and Paris?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #960] use ITU E.164 calling codes instead of ISO 3166 country codes, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• xml2rfc category (was RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction alludetointendedbcp status?), Scott Hollenbeck
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude tointendedbcp status?, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #957] compatibility of description format with ISO table format, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #950] iso 3166 inadequate for regional variants, Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude tointendedbcp status?, Scott Hollenbeck
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude tointendedbcp status?, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude to intendedbcp status?, Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude to intended bcp status?, Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude tointendedbcp status?, Scott Hollenbeck
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #942] clarify advice on use of subtags, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude to intendedbcp status?, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639registration request has been processed?, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude to intended bcp status?, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: date problem, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Interim and Paris?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #960] use ITU E.164 calling codes instead of ISO 3166 country codes, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Mark Davis
• [Ltru] meta (was: [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?), Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained byISO, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #950] iso 3166 inadequate for regional variants, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: a way toward homograph resolution ?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] date problem, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #955] expand scope to include computer languages, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and position toidentify subtag problematic, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] BCP forever (was: [psg.com #957]), John Cowan
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and position toidentify subtag problematic, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] BCP forever (was: [psg.com #957]), Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #956] document use of "" as deprecation indicator, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #955] expand scope to include computer languages, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #953] change process for handling registration requests, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #950] iso 3166 inadequate for regional variants, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #937] is the word "interchange" in the abstract unclear?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: RFC 2277 - considerations, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #949] remove three-character limit in sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 (of -00), Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #948] deprecate two-letter language codes in favor of three-letter ones, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #947] is set of possible primary languages too constrained?, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and position to identify subtag problematic, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #945] use "." to separate subtags, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #944] MAY a conformant implementation impose length constraints?, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: RFC 2277 - considerations, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #943] number of subtags SHOULD be limited to four, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #942] clarify advice on use of subtags, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #940] is the word "recognized" unclear in the syntax section?, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #957] compatibility of description format withISO table format, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #939] explain difference between tags and labels, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude to intended bcp status?, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #937] is the word "interchange" in the abstract unclear?, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #936] is the phrase "information object" in the abstract unclear?, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #935] is the word "indicate" in the abstract unclear?, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions in registry entries, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #957] compatibility of description format with ISO table format, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #933] Java support, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #944] MAY a conformant implementation impose length constraints?, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #944] MAY a conformant implementation imposelengthconstraints?, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #944] MAY a conformant implementation impose length constraints?, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #944] MAY a conformant implementation impose lengthconstraints?, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptionsinregistryentries, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #943] number of subtags SHOULD be limited to four, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions inregistryentries, Frank Ellermann
• jamais deux sans trois ? (was RE: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations), JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #949] remove three-character limit in sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 (of -00), JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and positiontoidentify subtag problematic, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and positiontoidentify subtag problematic, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• RE: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, Peter Constable
• May 10 2005
• RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and positiontoidentify subtag problematic, Peter Constable
• [Ltru] [psg.com #959] consolidate review process instructions, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #958] move tag formation rules, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #957] compatibility of description format with ISO table format, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #956] document use of "" as deprecation indicator, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #955] expand scope to include computer languages, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #950] iso 3166 inadequate for regional variants, John Cowan
• [Ltru] [psg.com #953] change process for handling registration requests, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #952] how to determine whether an ISO 639 registration request has been processed?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #951] extensibility via codes not maintained by ISO, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #950] iso 3166 inadequate for regional variants, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions inregistryentries, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions inregistryentries, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, ned . freed
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, ned . freed
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions inregistryentries, John Cowan
• RE: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, Misha Wolf
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions inregistryentries, Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions inregistryentries, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions in registryentries, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions inregistryentries, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions inregistryentries, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #949] remove three-character limit in sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 (of -00), Markus Scherer
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and position toidentify subtag problematic, Marion Gunn
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #943] number of subtags SHOULD be limited to four, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #944] MAY a conformant implementation impose lengthconstraints?, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions in registryentries, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and position to identify subtag problematic, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions in registryentries, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #944] MAY a conformant implementation impose lengthconstraints?, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #942] clarify advice on use of subtags, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #946] use of both length and position to identifysubtag problematic, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #943] number of subtags SHOULD be limited to four, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and position to identify subtag problematic, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] [psg.com #949] remove three-character limit in sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 (of -00), Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #948] deprecate two-letter language codes in favor of three-letter ones, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #947] is set of possible primary languages too constrained?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #946] use of both length and position to identify subtag problematic, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #945] use "." to separate subtags, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #944] MAY a conformant implementation impose length constraints?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #943] number of subtags SHOULD be limited to four, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #942] clarify advice on use of subtags, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #941] determining currency of registry versions, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #940] is the word "recognized" unclear in the syntax section?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #939] explain difference between tags and labels, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #938] should introduction allude to intended bcp status?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #937] is the word "interchange" in the abstract unclear?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #936] is the phrase "information object" in the abstract unclear?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #935] is the word "indicate" in the abstract unclear?, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions in registry entries, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] [psg.com #933] Java support, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Another batch of ltru tickets in RT, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• May 09 2005
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, ned . freed
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, Martin Duerst
• May 07 2005
• [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• May 06 2005
• Re: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive commentsondraft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, Marion Gunn
• [Ltru] Registration forms (was: ...substantive comments on draft-ietf-ltru-registry...), Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive comments ondraft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, Doug Ewell
• RE: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive comments ondraft-ietf-ltr u-registry-01, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• May 05 2005
• Re: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive comments on draft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, John Cowan
• RE: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive comments ondraft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive comments ondraft-ietf-ltr u-registry-01, McDonald, Ira
• RE: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive commentsondraft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive comments ondraft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, Mark Davis
• RE: [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive comments ondraft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: John Cowan's substantive comments on draft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: ISO/TC 46 mtgs in Dublin (Ireland) next week, Marion Gunn
• [Ltru] ISO/TC 46 mtgs in Dublin (Ireland) next week, Marion Gunn
• May 04 2005
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: regionalisation, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Marion Gunn
• [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: regionalisation, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• May 03 2005
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, John Cowan
• [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: 3 - Simplified registry ABNF, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] Re: regionalisation, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 3 - Simplified registry ABNF, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: regionalisation, Marion Gunn
• [Ltru] Re: 3 - Simplified registry ABNF, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: regionalisation, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: 5 - Appendix D: Redundant Tags, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: 3 - Simplified registry ABNF, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: 3 - Simplified registry ABNF (was: Open points before -02), Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: regionalisation, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: Open tickets on initial registry, Doug Ewell
• May 02 2005
• [Ltru] Re: 5 - Appendix D: Redundant Tags, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: 3 - Simplified registry ABNF, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: 3 - Simplified registry ABNF, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] 5 - Appendix D: Redundant Tags (was: Open points before -02), Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] 3 - Simplified registry ABNF (was: Open points before -02), Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] 3 - Simplified registry ABNF (was: Open points before -02), Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] 5 - Appendix D: Redundant Tags (was: Open points before -02), Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Last registry for now, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Marion Gunn
• RE: [Ltru] Last registry for now, Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] Last registry for now, Marion Gunn
• [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Last registry for now, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Open points before -02, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: New registry with Suppress_Script, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Last registry for now, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] regionalisation, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, Doug Ewell
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Open tickets on initial registry, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] Re: New registry with Suppress_Script, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] Re: New registry with Suppress_Script, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Open points before -02, Frank Ellermann
• May 01 2005
• Re: [Ltru] Re: New registry with Suppress_Script, Marion Gunn
• [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: Open tickets on initial registry, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: New registry with Suppress_Script, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, Doug Ewell
• Apr 30 2005
• Re: [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Doug Ewell
• Apr 29 2005
• [Ltru] Fw: Area Advisor Changes, Randy Presuhn
• Apr 28 2005
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Mark Davis
• [Ltru] Re: aaa-bbb-ccc-ddd-eee-fff-ggg-hhh-Latn-US-boont, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• Apr 27 2005
• [Ltru] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-registry-01.txt, Internet-Drafts
• Re: [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Mark Davis
• RE: [Ltru] aaa-bbb-ccc-ddd-eee-fff-ggg-hhh-Latn-US-boont (was: -01 nits), Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Mark Davis
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: -01 nits, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] aaa-bbb-ccc-ddd-eee-fff-ggg-hhh-Latn-US-boont (was: -01 nits), Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Re: -01 nits, Peter Constable
• [Ltru] Re: -01 nits, Frank Ellermann
• Apr 26 2005
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] -01 nits, Mark Davis
• RE: [Ltru] -01 nits, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] [submission] draft-ietf-ltru-registry-01, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] -01 nits, Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] Charter Debates?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Charter Debates?, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] -01 nits, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] Re: -01 nits, John Cowan
• RE: [Ltru] Re: -01 nits, Peter Constable
• [Ltru] Re: -01 nits, Doug Ewell
• RE: [Ltru] ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, L.Gillam
• Re: [Ltru] ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, John Cowan
• [Ltru] ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot, L.Gillam
• [Ltru] Submitting Drafts (was: Re: -01 nits), Martin Duerst
• [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: -01 nits, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] -01 nits, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] (need approval) Working Group submission: LTRU registry draft-01, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: (need approval) Working Group submission: LTRU registry draft-01, Martin Duerst
• Apr 25 2005
• [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus, James Cloos
• [Ltru] (need approval) Working Group submission: LTRU registry draft-01, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus, James Cloos
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• Apr 24 2005
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021 (was: Moving Forward), JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021 (was: Moving Forward), John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021 (was: Moving Forward), JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Open tickets on initial registry, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Miscellaneous registry details, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021 (was: Moving Forward), John Cowan
• Re: [Ltru] Re: BCP 47, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021 (was: Moving Forward), Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus (was: new version posted online), Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: New registry with Suppress_Script, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: BCP 47, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Mark Davis
• [Ltru] Support of JAVA, Jefsey Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus (was: new version posted online), John Cowan
• [Ltru] Re: FWS vs. LWSP, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus, Frank Ellermann
• Apr 23 2005
• RE: [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus (was: new version posted online), McDonald, Ira
• [Ltru] Re: FWS vs. LWSP (was: new version posted online), Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: hyphen-minus (was: new version posted online), Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] BCP 47, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] 003 vs. 021 (was: Moving Forward), John Cowan
• [Ltru] 003 vs. 021 (was: Moving Forward), Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] BCP 47 (was: Support of JAVA), Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Support of JAVA, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• RE: [Ltru] Support of JAVA, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Apr 22 2005
• RE: [Ltru] Support of JAVA, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Support of JAVA, Peter Constable
• [Ltru] Support of JAVA, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Marion Gunn
• Apr 21 2005
• Re: [Ltru] [OT] How should "fa" be handled in the future?, John Cowan
• [Ltru] Re: New version posted: ready for publication??, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, John Cowan
• [Ltru] [OT] How should "fa" be handled in the future?, Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, John Cowan
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] in practice only 25 (was: New version posted: ready for publication??), Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Marion Gunn
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Misha Wolf
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Misha Wolf
• [Ltru] edits posted, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Misha Wolf
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Addison Phillips
• Apr 20 2005
• [Ltru] New version posted: ready for publication??, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] hyphen-minus (was: new version posted online), Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] hyphen-minus (was: new version posted online), JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Apr 19 2005
• RE: [Ltru] Re: New registry with Suppress_Script, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: New registry with Suppress_Script, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] FWS vs. LWSP (was: new version posted online), Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] hyphen-minus (was: new version posted online), Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] hyphen-minus (was: new version posted online), Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] subtle ABNF (was: new version posted online), Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] New registry with Suppress_Script, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] RE: Generic variant subtags in RFC 3066bis, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] RE: Generic variant subtags in RFC 3066bis, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Addison Phillips
• Apr 18 2005
• [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] considerations for ISO 639-6 at consensus? (was:newversionposted online), Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] considerations for ISO 639-6 at consensus? (was:newversion posted online), Debbie Garside
• RE: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] considerations for ISO 639-6 at consensus? (was:newversionposted online), Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] considerations for ISO 639-6 at consensus? (was:newversion posted online), Mark Davis
• RE: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: Suppress & Require Script, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, John Cowan
• RE: [Ltru] considerations for ISO 639-6 at consensus? (was: newversion posted online), Peter Constable
• [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, McDonald, Ira
• RE: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, John Cowan
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, McDonald, Ira
• RE: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, McDonald, Ira
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Suppress & Require Script, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] new version posted online, McDonald, Ira
• [Ltru] Re: Suppress & Require Script, Frank Ellermann
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] considerations for ISO 639-6 at consensus? (was: newversion posted online), Randy Presuhn
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, McDonald, Ira
• RE: [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] considerations for ISO 639-6 at consensus? (was: new version posted online), Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: new version posted online, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] new version posted online, Debbie Garside
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Suppress & Require Script, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Randy Presuhn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: Suppress & Require Script, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Supress & Require Script, Debbie Garside
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Marion Gunn
• [Ltru] new version posted online, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, McDonald, Ira
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Addison Phillips
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Marion Gunn
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Mark Davis
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Addison Phillips
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Addison Phillips
• [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] "Pitting" (was: Re: [psg.com #882]), Doug Ewell
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• RE: [Ltru] Supress & Require Script, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
• [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Doug Ewell
• [Ltru] Re: Suppress & Require Script, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward, Peter Constable
• [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Frank Ellermann
• RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward, Peter Constable
• RE: [Ltru] Supress & Require Script, Peter Constable
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Mark Davis
• Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Randy Presuhn
• [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script, Frank Ellermann
• [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward, Frank Ellermann