Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG

Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> Sun, 09 July 2006 13:34 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzZQn-0000Ru-2t; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:34:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzZQk-0000RY-Vy; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:34:38 -0400
Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzZQj-0002y2-M5; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:34:38 -0400
Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id k69DYVje018230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 06:34:31 -0700
Received: from [132.219.19.239] (vpn-10-50-16-58.qualcomm.com [10.50.16.58]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/1.0) with ESMTP id k69DYSCT004926; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 06:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06230900c0d6b3baf45d@[10.1.242.250]>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060709140732.03617490@afrac.org>
References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> <30b660a20607070827g88c9daak2048987e087a3530@mail.gmail.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20060708141213.080016f0@localhost> <p06230902c0d69b004eab@[10.1.242.250]> <7.0.1.0.2.20060709140732.03617490@afrac.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 06:34:30 -0700
To: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: ltru@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

At 2:37 PM +0200 7/9/06, r&d afrac wrote:
>
>Dear Ted,
>publishing a document knowing that it will be appealed can been seen as a pressure against treating fearly that appeal.

jfc,

	I was giving a general response on how the system works, not trying
to predict the course of a particular document. 
	Holding a document because it might be appealed does not make sense
for the usual processing; putting a standard "two month hold" on all documents
would be a lengthy delay that was usually completely needless.  That's what
Martin's message implied, and it is not the case.
	The key thing for any appeal is that it be possible to provide a remedy
if the appeal is upheld.  In the case where a document is appealed before it is
published, it is held until the appeal is resolved.  In the case where a document is
appealed after it is published, the document must be replaced (possibly with a
short document naming the original as historic) if the appeal is upheld.
				
				Ted Hardie



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