On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:08:28PM +0900, Martin Duerst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote a message of 30 lines which said: > As requested by Doug, I herewith declare a WG Last Call on > draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-06.txt. I've reviewed the document (do not worry, I take my time and I did it before the last call). As already mentioned here, I automatically tested the new registry (for things like broken pointers to languages) and found no error. I do not see any serious problem with the text either. A few editorial details: * "inverted", used several times, does not seem to be formally defined somewhere * I'm a bit concerned that the rationale for the list of macrolanguages in 2.2 is not exposed. If you want to know why Akan is treated differently from Uzbek, you have to dig into the LTRU archives. _______________________________________________ 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.