IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Sun, 02 December 2007 22:37 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyxRX-0000Cf-4H; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:37:43 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyxRV-0008WL-TT for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:37:41 -0500
Received: from sequoia.muada.com ([83.149.65.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyxRU-0002Bh-BN for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:37:41 -0500
Received: from dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org (dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org [130.129.22.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB2MaB6I079509 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:36:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Message-Id: <5505FD76-CD5E-4D75-BAD3-5450BAC02613@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fisflk$f34$1@ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:36:15 -0800
References: <E1IxTPt-0006r4-ST@ietf.org> <474E61A4.2000201@alvestrand.no><010901c83339$b56e0d20$0601a8c0@pc6> <firlnd$5h7$1@ger.gmane.org> <41DBABA8CD72B065EE053127@p3.JCK.COM> <fisflk$f34$1@ger.gmane.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=3.5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP,ILJQX_SUBJ_HUH,ILJQX_SUBJ_NUMINWORD autolearn=no version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sequoia.muada.com
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Sorry for the complete change in subject, but I think it's important  
to avoid confusion here:

On 1 dec 2007, at 12:22, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Disclaimer, I like Excel
> on boxes where it's available, it's a nice product.  But it's
> not nice enough to say that 1900-02-29 was day 60 in year 0,
> if that's what the 6000 ooXML pages say (I only looked at some
> nits in the BSI Wiki, I never read any page of the huge draft).

What are you trying to say here?

There never was a februari 29 in 1900 so giving that non-existant day  
a number would be problematic. From your statement, I assume there is  
a standard that does this, but I'm not sure which one and why. Could  
you enlighten us?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email