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

Re: [Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff

From: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
To: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>
Cc: ltru at ietf.org
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:53:20 -0400
In-reply-to: <FECA026F6D0E4577A64AF19712271470 at streamserve.com>
References: <20080620200834.GP25157 at mercury.ccil.org> <FECA026F6D0E4577A64AF19712271470 at streamserve.com>

Kent Karlsson scripsit:

> John Cowan wrote:
> 
> > BNF:  In the current state of things, why are we allowing two extlangs
> > rather than one or three?
> 
> That is not the case:

Thanks for the correction.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on
the shoulders of giants.
        --Isaac Newton
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

References:
- [Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff
  - From: John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff
  - From: Kent Karlsson

Prev by Date: Re: [Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff
Next by Date: Re: [Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff
Previous by thread: Re: [Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff
Next by thread: Re: [Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff
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.