At 17:30 05/07/10, Martin Duerst wrote: >[chair hat off] > >At 22:54 05/07/09, r&d afrac wrote: >> >This, I believe, describes perfectly why the Draft doctrine adds to the basic error of RFC 3066 attenuated by its lose application (that IETF has the capacity to correlate non protocol parameters). Jon Postel had clearly established it: this is none of the IANA business. Not only it seems that cultural empowerment is ignored by the author of this text. But, since the topic here is ISO 3166, it shows a remakable confusion between Senegal and Zimbabwe which precisely document my point and the difficulty to establish general rules in a world made of particulars.
>>I don't see why RFC 1766, RFC 3066, and RFC 3066 would ignore cultural empowerment. >After all, these specs allow for people (anybody with an email account!) to apply >for a registration. This is much more flexible than ISO process (which fortunately
>has become somewhat more flexible recently). Sorry, a small correction. In the first line of my paragraph, it should read "RFC 1766, RFC3066, and RFC 3066bis".Regards, Martin.
_______________________________________________ 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.