As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646.No it didn't. Mark and I started 4646 on the very first day of the Iraq war. You forget that there were a dozen or so draft-davis-phillips documents before the WG even started.
I didn't forget. My copy of draft-phillips-langtags-00 is dated 2003-12-17. The final draft which became RFC 4646, draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14, was approved by IESG on 2005-11-15, or 699 days later. We did wait another 10 months for RFC numbers, but that time was mostly spent working on the relatively uncontroversial draft-4647 and planning for LTRU 2.0.
Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-00, the first LTRU 2.0 draft, was dated 2006-09-11 -- perhaps coincidentally, the same date RFC 4646 was published. Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23 was approved by IESG on 2009-06-18 (the formal announcement came a week later). That's a span of 1,011 days, or 315 days longer for LTRU 2.0 than for LTRU 1.0. And of course, we're still waiting for RFC numbers.
I'd be willing to bet we spent more days actually *working* on the first set of drafts than on the second, but we had a LOT of downtime over the past 3 years. Some issues were left unresolved and undiscussed for weeks at a time.
-- 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.