RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", a

> From: ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no] On Behalf Of John C Klensin

> (3) Finally, there is apparently a procedural oddity with this
> document.  The people who put it together apparently held
> extended discussions on the ietf-languages mailing list, a list
> that was established largely or completely to review
> registrations under 3066 and its predecessors.    My
> understanding at this point is that their good-faith impression
> was that the discussions on that list were essentially
> equivalent to those of a WG.
I believe I can say that it was done this way because it followed the
example of the development of RFC 3066, which to my knowledge (as a
member of the IETF-languages list at that time) happened in the same
way. It was certainly done with a good-faith impression that appropriate
procedures were being followed.



Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf