Review periods

Peter Constable petercon at
Fri Apr 17 08:59:27 CEST 2015

That's why I consider it a pre-requisite. I'd still expect an explicit statement to eliminate any ambiguity, however. In any formal process, substantive decisions should never be left to inference.


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:doug at] 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:30 PM
To: Peter Constable; ietf-languages at
Subject: Re: Review periods

Peter Constable wrote:

> I understand that the review period for "colb1945" (#5 in the list
> below) is extended to April 23. And I understand that Michael closed 
> on deprecation of "en-GB-oed" (#2), though I haven't seen closure on 
> the pre-requisite registration of "oxendict" (#1).

I interpreted approval of the deprecation of "en-GB-oed" to include the registration of 'oxendict', since the latter is part of the Preferred-Value of the former.

Doug Ewell | | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list