Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050804153447.04c806e0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:47:05 +0200
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Second WG last call on
	draft-ietf-ltru-initial-03.txt ends 2005-08-08
In-Reply-To: <17125119.1123146692737.JavaMail.root@wamui-cedar.atl.sa.ea
	rthlink.net>
References: <17125119.1123146692737.JavaMail.root@wamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

No comment on this text which lists typographer related information.

Except that it is not defined by any RFC, that its Informational status 
does not seem to fit with its normative quality (except if the main Draft 
only claims Informational status what would be appropriate, as describing 
an application related group intents). I note that Addison's change in 
abstract to make sure it is only IANA related, has not be copied into the 
text of the document, which still can be ISO 11173 conformant. It has no 
Internationlisation considerations section what is innapropriate as it 
should document why it is not internationalised.

jfc



At 11:11 04/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>I see the announcement for the availability of the revised initial 
>registry draft has
>been sent out.  (Thanks to Doug and to the Secretariat for the quick 
>turnaround!)
>
>We'll have a BRIEF second WG last call on this document, and I'd like to limit
>the scope of this last call to verifying that changes agreed during
>the first WG last call are properly reflected by the text.  (Of course, if 
>anyone
>finds a substantial technical error, we'd like to hear about it now rather 
>than
>waiting for the IETF last call.)  This last call will end Monday, August 
>8.  The
>draft is available at
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-03.txt
>
>I'd like those who take the time to look at this document to post a message,
>either to the ltru WG mailing list or to the co-chairs, indicating that 
>they've
>read it and whether they are OK with it.  We need this information for the
>paperwork we need to submit along with our request to the IESG to consider
>it for publication as an Informational RFC.
>
>Randy, ltru co-chair
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru