Hi -
From: "Ned Freed" <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
To: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org>; "Ned Freed"
<ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>; "IETF General Discussion Mailing
List"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Ben Finney"
<ben+ietf(_at_)benfinney(_dot_)id(_dot_)au>; "Harald Alvestrand"
<harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; "John C Klensin"
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 1345 mnemonics table not consistent with Unicode 3.2.0
...
In any case, I have always stated that I for one would be more than willing to
work on this (and I happen to have considerable expertise in this area) were
it
not for the difficulty I predict will arise in getting it through the process.
Now, perhaps in your opinion my priorities are completely messed up, but with
all due respect, that's just not a call you get to make.
...
Since I've spoken up much earlier in this thread...
I have no objection to the idea of an independent submission for an
*informational*
RFC updating or superceding RFC 1345, if there are folks willing to do the work
and who think it would be worthwhile. However, I also have no interest in
spending
any time working on it or reviewing it.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf