Request for publication: New Version Notification for draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04
vint at google.com
Sun Mar 6 19:22:15 CET 2011
works for me
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:
> I have once again changed the acknowledgement section. I have gone back to
> the discussion I have had with the IETF trust, and re-read all comments on
> this list (and off list) from various people.
> The final suggestion from me as an editor is the following. Reasoning for
> this is that it is very uncommon, if it has happened at all, that single
> individuals are pointed out as being in the rough part of the rough
> consensus. This mainly because it looks like if everyone else _strongly_
> supports every single word in the document. A statement I can not stand
> behind as an editor.
> As an editor I can only say in this section a) who has helped, and b) that
> there was rough consensus behind the document.
> 5. Acknowledgements
> The main contributors are (in alphabetical order) Eric Brunner-
> Williams, Vint Cerf, Tina Dam, Martin Duerst, John Klensin, Mark
> Davis, Pete Resnick, Markus Scherer, Andrew Sullivan, Kenneth
> Whistler and Nicholas Williams.
> Not all contributors believe the solution for the issues discussed in
> this document is optimal.
> With this, I hereby ask the area director for this to be published as an
> Thanks everyone.
> Begin forwarded message:
> > From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission at ietf.org>
> > Date: 6 mars 2011 16.40.11 CET
> > To: paf at cisco.com
> > Cc: paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04
> > A new version of I-D, draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt has been
> successfully submitted by Patrik Faltstrom and posted to the IETF
> > Filename: draft-faltstrom-5892bis
> > Revision: 04
> > Title: The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0
> > Creation_date: 2011-03-06
> > WG ID: Independent Submission
> > Number_of_pages: 5
> > Abstract:
> > This document specifies IETF consensus for IDNA derived character
> > properties related to the three code points, existing in Unicode 5.2,
> > that changed property values when version 6.0 was released. The
> > consensus is that no update is needed to RFC 5892 based on the
> > changes made in Unicode 6.0.
> > The IETF Secretariat.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update