Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
I'm not happy that all this stuff is popping up just now, particularly since for some of these it is't at all clear what the proposed resolution is.
All of these except #22 are directly related to the ISO 639-5 Web site having just been rolled out. We could have avoided dealing with these issues if we hadn't let this project sit dormant for long periods of time.
#22 - if we don't see some discussion and OK on the ietf-languages at iana.org list for making the changes to the preferred value for CS, we will REVERT the changes in the I-D, which will require the LSR to make the changes after the RFC is published. It seems more sensible to to not revert the changes, but I'm willing to take that path only with the blessing of the LSR.
I thought someone was going to notify the LSR and ietf-languages groups. I will do that.
#24: we're awaiting a concrete textual proposal. If none appears by Monday afternoon (Pacific Time) February 23, I will close it with no action to be taken by the editor.
I will send Old/New text to this list.
#25: If there are no objections to the editor's proposal by Monday afternoon (Pacific Time) February 23, I propose accepting this proposed resolution.
I agree.
#26: we're awaiting a concrete textual proposal. If none appears by Monday afternoon (Pacific Time) February 23, I will close it with no action to be taken by the editor.
The IT is misleadingly named. There is no proposal to delete 'car' from the draft. It was deleted from 639-5 and there is a proposal to delete a paragraph in Section 2.3 of the draft that explained how we resolved a conflict that no longer exists. The textual proposal already on the table is very concrete -- "delete the paragraph" -- and I strongly support accepting it.
#27: we're awaiting a concrete textual proposal. If none appears by Monday afternoon (Pacific Time) February 23, I will close it with no action to be taken by the editor.
There is no issue.
#28: If there are no objections to the editor's proposal by Monday afternoon (Pacific Time) February 23, I propose accepting this proposed resolution.
I agree.
#29: we're awaiting a concrete textual proposal. If none appears by Monday afternoon (Pacific Time) February 23, I will close it with no action to be taken by the editor.
There is no issue. -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, 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
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.