Hi Frank - > From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> > To: <ltru at ietf.org> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:38 PM > Subject: [Ltru] #1026 (was: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200) > > Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > Could you point me to the specific text that was proposed? > > "Missing definition of conflict" was discussed in the thread > <http://mid.gmane.org/42829109.2E72 at xyzzy.claranet.de> > > > The best way to ensure that an i-d addresses your concerns > > is to propose specific text. > > An agreement with the editors about the underlying issue is > also okay, but obviously I forgot to check the outcome, sorry. > > Specific text proposed in my parallel message for #1026, see > also <http://mid.gmane.org/42AB3D9E.46C8 at xyzzy.claranet.de> ... Forgive me for being dense, but neither of those two messages says how it would address issue #900, the question of subtag 200. (I'm not arguing whether they do or they don't - they're just not explicit.) As a process geek with relatively little interest in language tagging, I have great sympathy for anyone trying to make sense of these stream-of-consciousness postings, and am baffled by your moving it into the thread for issue #1026, unless you're going to argue that there should be a common underlying principle. (If that's what you're doing, it would help me a lot if you'd actually say so, and then state what it is, and then claim that it addresses issues #foo, #bar, and #bas.) Otherwise, it's *really* hard for me to tell who is advocating what, further delaying closure. Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.