Martin Duerst wrote: > I don't think it would be appropriate for the WG to finalize > the new draft and send it to the IESG before we know that > ISO 639-3 is really approved, because the fact that it is not > fully approved may mean that there are some more changes, in > which case we have to go back and make some changes, too. As > ISO 639-3 is the major reason for our new work, I wouldn't > call this an "artificial" dependency. We also need more procedural experience with the rules as they are. State of the art would be "dump review list as complete failure wrt Suppress-Script". If published today 3066ter should be different from 3066bis wrt list and review management. E.g. we now need a "MUST" for the expert reviewer to read the rules (s)he's supposed to follow. Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.