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

Re: [Ltru] Issue #43: AD #10 - section 5.1 vs 3.2 on File-Date value

From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:49:15 -0700
References: <C653FD55.D8E8%kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se><4A2E337D.4060202 at it.aoyama.ac.jp><80FF3041110D4B69934418AD3418823E at DGBP7M81> <4A2F0827.1000809 at it.aoyama.ac.jp>

Hi -

> From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #43: AD #10 - section 5.1 vs 3.2 on File-Date value
>
> [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.

Done.

Randy

References:
- Re: [Ltru] Issue #43: AD #10 - section 5.1 vs 3.2 on File-Date value
  - From: Kent Karlsson
- Re: [Ltru] Issue #43: AD #10 - section 5.1 vs 3.2 on File-Date value
  - From: "Martin J. Dürst"
- Re: [Ltru] Issue #43: AD #10 - section 5.1 vs 3.2 on File-Date value
  - From: Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Issue #43: AD #10 - section 5.1 vs 3.2 on File-Date value
  - From: "Martin J. Dürst"

Prev by Date: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)
Next by Date: Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language withMUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)
Previous by thread: Re: [Ltru] Issue #43: AD #10 - section 5.1 vs 3.2 on File-Date value
Next by thread: Re: [Ltru] Issue #40: AD #7 - section 3.4 on ISO 3166 vs UN M.49
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.