Mark Davis mark.davis at jtcsv.com
Wed Dec 8 18:01:02 CET 2004

I looked over Tex's comments, and while there are some good suggestions for
the future, nothing looks to be of such importance as to delay the issuance
of the RFC. Please all chime in on this, so that an appearance of
disagreement does not cause a hiccup in the schedule!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tex Texin" <tex at xencraft.com>
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 02:09
Subject: Re: -08 comments

> Peter,
> I feel as you do about bringing this to closure.
> A few of the comments are not new and were either not addressed or I
missed the
> response.
> (This is not a complaint. The comments were made as Addison and Mark were
> traveling and accumulating lots of feedback, so could have easily been
> we all know how that goes. Or I could easily have missed their response
with my
> own travels, and spam and virus filters being what they are.)
> Many comments are requests for clarification, not change, and I believe
> addressed (or in some cases deferred) without triggering additional
> The introduction of additional subtags brings with it more variations on
> tags can be matched or processed. The matching algorithm should be clear.
> web sites and web services these days are built on a mix of technologies,
> if they don't do similar things with tags, we will have problems.
> Also, the clear identification of what's normative seems important to me.
> That said, like you, I would welcome processes that bring closure without
> sacrificing suitability of the standard for the long term.
> Regards,
> Tex
> Peter Constable wrote:
> >
> > I'm glad to see the draft getting reviewed, and think that Tex has made
> > some valid comments.
> >
> > At the same time, I'd like to see this project brought to completion
> > (I'm sure Addison and Mark feel the same) so that we can get on with
> > preparing implementations. There will inevitably be additional
> > refinements that can be identified for some time if we keep the process
> > open-ended. But then we'll never be able to implement.
> >
> > With that in mind, I'd like to ask if it would be possible to get some
> > process set in place that can ensure that this round of revision gets
> > closed and that a new BCP gets accepted within some set time frame?
> >
> > (I don't want to detract at all from your comments, Tex; it's just that
> > this revision process formally started almost 13 months ago now --
> > 2003-11-14 -- and it needs closure.)
> >
> > Peter Constable
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list