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

Martin Duerst <> Sun, 09 July 2006 08:55 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzV4W-00025k-Rh; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:55:24 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzV4V-00025f-Np for; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:55:23 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzV4R-0004da-3L for; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:55:23 -0400
Received: from (scmse1 []) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id k698tEqw029724; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:55:14 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ( by via smtp id 5624_a2f293cc_0f28_11db_9b99_0014221fa3c9; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:55:13 +0900
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k698t5MO020598; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:55:08 +0900
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:22:40 +0900
To: Mark Davis <>
From: Martin Duerst <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG
In-Reply-To: < >
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: LTRU Working Group <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

At 00:27 06/07/08, Mark Davis wrote:

>BTW, any word on when the two RFCs will be published?

No. At the minimum, we have to wait for two months for potential
appeals. Then, if there is an appeal, we have to wait for it to
be dealt with. After that, things are up to the RFC Editor. You
can check their queue at

Then one day the editors will get a notice that the RFC Editor
has prepared their document for publication, with information
(diff) on what they changed. The editors then have to check these
changes very carefully (in my own experience, some of them are
just formatting changes, some are helpful wording improvements,
some don't actually change anything, but some others easily
may change the meaning of the document in a way not intended
at all) and communicate back to the RFC Editor. This is supposed
to be a very short period, that's why it's caled "authors 48 hours",
although in general it's a bit longer. It's very important that:
a) you check carefully and exactly tell the RFC Editor (in their
   format) what needs to be fixed, usally in several rounds, and
b) ALL editors of a document explicitly acknowledge that the
   final version can be published. If one editor is on vacation
   or otherwise unreachable, the publication waits.

Regards,     Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University

Ltru mailing list