Hi -
From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison(_at_)amazon(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred value for YU
Hi Tex,
I don't think this is probably appropriate, at least for this list to
consider.
Tex's posting came after the document shepherd (co-chair Martin Duerst)
had sent the information to our AD requesting that the IESG consider
publishing it. So although the IESG has not yet (AFAIK) acted on the
request, much less issued an IETF last call, I can understand why
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org might be included.
I have already responded to it on both lists, even though I think the
issue is probably of little interest to most on the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
list.
Unless instructed to do otherwise by our AD, I would suggest that
all follow-on discussion be directed to ltru(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
1. You haven't posted to LTRU's mailing list, only ietf-languages@, yet.
Tex's message was posted to *both* lists.
2. Even if draft-4645bis is approved, the process for language tags
(in either RFC 4646 or its proposed successor) allow you to register
the information you want, if you think it was inappropriately omitted.
...
Correct.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf