[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ltru] Well-formed vs. regular (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt

From: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
To: Mark Davis <mark.davis at icu-project.org>
Cc: ltru at ietf.org
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:27:32 -0500
In-reply-to: <30b660a20612140859q6aa95b00k1208e44e557d9c92 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1GsQBu-0003O8-OX at stiedprstage1.ietf.org> <20061214120916.GA27747 at nic.fr> <30b660a20612140859q6aa95b00k1208e44e557d9c92 at mail.gmail.com>

Marcus Davis Stephano Bortzmeyero scripsit:

> I agree that the language needs a bit of cleanup, but not quite what you
> suggest.

I think you two are in violent agreement.

-- 
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn
                John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Ltru] Well-formed vs. regular (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
  - From: Mark Davis

References:
- [Ltru] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
  - From: Internet-Drafts
- [Ltru] Well-formed vs. regular (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
  - From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Ltru] Well-formed vs. regular (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
  - From: Mark Davis

Prev by Date: [Ltru] Re: Description field ordering
Next by Date: Re: [Ltru] Well-formed vs. regular (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
Previous by thread: Re: [Ltru] Well-formed vs. regular (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
Next by thread: Re: [Ltru] Well-formed vs. regular (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.