Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050317200359.039ddeb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:24:01 +0100
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>,
	"Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>, <ietf-languages@iana.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0AA9E6BA@irvmbxw01.quest.c
 om>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0AA9E6BA@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: Re: OT: JFC's response to Peter and Doug
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

Dear Addison,
As indicated I fully agree that this debate should be on WG-LTRU. I have 
however a problem with a swicth because you only commented (and kept in the 
mail) the introduction where I just repeated the nature of my 
desriptions.So the part  where I respond the question you ask (difference 
with your position) is missing.

So here what I will do: I will explain the mail in a header, I will attach 
that part and will comment to respond your question and I will send it as a 
new threat on WG-ltru. Is that OK?

You will excuse me, but I have a familly meeting tonight. I will do this 
tonight or tomorrow morning. Just this: I fully agree that initial 
differences are minor. It would be very strange it would be otherwise! This 
is why the tuning should be easy. But what counts to me is the part you did 
not comment.

Please do not comment before I run my home work on this so we keep 
continuing clearly. Just say if you disagree with the switch to wg-ltru.
Thank you.
jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages