[hats on] I have counted 6 people in favor of the new text, and nobody against.Editors, please replace the old text (see Kent's earlier mail in this thread) with the text below.
Randy, please close this issue. Regards, Martin. On 2009/06/09 22:04, Doug Ewell wrote:
I think Kent's proposed text, together with Martin's slight edit, is excellent. It reflects current IANA practice, which works well and is really better than what 4646 says, and it provides a justification for the File-Date records in the replacement records even though IANA doesn't use them verbatim. Let's go with it. -- 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======PROPOSED TEXT================= Whenever an entry is created or modified in the registry, the 'File-Date' record at the start of the registry is updated to reflect the most recent modification date. The date format SHALL be the "full-date" format of [RFC3339] (Klyne, G., ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", July 2002). The date SHALL be the date on which that version of the registry was first published by IANA. There SHALL be at most one version of the registry published in a day. A File-Date record is also included in each request to IANA to insert or modify records indicating the acceptance date of the records in the request. ======END PROPOSED TEXT=============
-- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.