Pending business

Phillips, Addison addison at
Mon Sep 15 19:10:11 CEST 2008

Ø  Is there some prescribed utterance I should make?

RFC 4646 Section 3.5 requires that you explicitly announce on the list for each request (we have three, currently) at the end of the two week period if the request was accepted, rejected, or the discussion extended by an additional two weeks.

Please note that Mark is in Switzerland for the next couple of months and has excellent connectivity there. He has sent several updated registration requests in response to your (and other’s) comments.

Why are you extending the ‘wadegile’ request? Just because ‘pinyin’ is not yet approved does not mean that ‘wadegile’ isn’t needed.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:00 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: Pending business

On 15 Sep 2008, at 04:30, Doug Ewell wrote:

I thought we were fine with 1959acad for the Belarusian orthography.

I ask Michael to formally extend the review period by 2 weeks for all three of these requests.  This is required by RFC 4646 and is the right thing to do.

Yes, well, fine. I thought I already said discussion wasn't done. Formalism in dating is written into a lot of these processes, but for instance with the 639 and 15924 standards no one ever worries about the actual date limits written into the text of the standard. Is there some prescribed utterance I should make?

For Pinyin of course the two weeks got us nowhere since I think Mark was away in Switzerland and then there was the Unicode Conference; I guess he was unable to look at his mail. For my part I am currently also travelling in the UK and don't have a lot of access.

Michael Everson *<>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list