Randy Presuhn wrote:
> my strong personal preference is to set up formal liaison
> relationships only when absolutely necessary.
Somehow Harald (?) managed to get an official letter from
the entity "ISO 639 RA JAC" and copied it into RFC 3066.
Years later we copied that statement from 3066 to 4646.
That could need an update confirming that there won't be
conflicts between 639-1/2 and 639-3, and that withdrawn
codes are never reassigned.
Is that possible without a formal exchange ? If not this
shouldn't be too bureaucratic:
1 - WG sends request to "RA JAC" (i.e. somebody does this
on behalf of the WG, and for that part this person has
to be authorized to speak for the WG).
2 - "RA JAC" sends a reply to the WG (or not), posted here.
3 - WG is happy with the reply (or not), liaison sends a
"thanks" (and that terminates this liaison activity).
4 - Updated official statement integrated into 4646bis.
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.