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

Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)

From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:20:44 -0600
References: <mailman.113.1247511614.10405.ltru at ietf.org>

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:

In the meantime, we could use some experience with rfc-to-be-4646bis.Constant rewriting will not improve matters.

I specifically would not want to recharter for the purpose of tweakingthe existing text. In fact, I might not participate in a LTRU 3.0 atall if tweaking the existing text turns out to take a large percentageof the WG's time, as it did in LTRU 2.0.


--
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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
  - From: Randy Presuhn

Prev by Date: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6
Next by Date: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
Previous by thread: Re: [Ltru] rechartering (to handle 639-6 or otherwise)
Next by thread: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
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.