"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:
I specifically left it in the hands of the LSR and cohorts. That seems like a reasonable way to get out of spelling out every possible Bad Variation.This is a matter for LTRU, not ietf-languages, because we are the ones putting together draft-4645bis. It would, however, fall to ietf-languages to make similar decisions during the maintenance phase.Descriptions can be registered if LTRU gets it "wrong" (or at least less desirable) somehow. We should allow ietf-languages to do something useful when we're done.
Are you proposing that the Reviewer and cohorts be allowed to review the 4645bis Registry for this type of duplication, and resolve each case unilaterally?
(rubs hands gleefully)At what point can we establish that the WG has agreed to this, so we can get started?
-- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.