Debbie Garside wrote:
One final thought, to cover all eventualities we could add the words “or its successor” after “ISO 639 JAC”.
When I read this, I thought of how much effort and text we have already devoted to trying to cover all eventualities.
Even if there are concrete plans to overhaul the ISO 639 administration, I think it would take a creative mind to read "ISO 639 JAC" in the RFC as not applying to a successor body. But if the rest of Debbie's proposal (or someone else's) is approved, these three additional words probably wouldn't hurt.
-- 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.