IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?

"Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com> Thu, 06 August 2009 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <addison@amazon.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8764F3A6A8D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vt6WRnF1Kezx for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com [72.21.196.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50273A695A for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,331,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="307360273"
Received: from smtp-in-1104.vdc.amazon.com ([10.140.10.25]) by smtp-border-fw-out-2101.iad2.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Aug 2009 04:22:32 +0000
Received: from ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com [10.248.163.23]) by smtp-in-1104.vdc.amazon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n764MVni030106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:22:31 GMT
Received: from EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.30]) by ex-hub-4102.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.23]) with mapi; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:31 -0700
From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:22:27 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
Thread-Index: AcoWNoWRsGetaRdDSp24EsPNxsf2ogAFqKAw
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AC46657F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
References: <mailman.77.1249498812.3028.ltru@ietf.org> <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81>
In-Reply-To: <292E8A1E354941089DE14D0A4B506207@DGBP7M81>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:22:30 -0000

> 
> "For my part, I hope that *that* revision is completed in a *much*
> shorter time that 3066bis has taken."
> 
> As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646. You forget that there were a dozen or so draft-davis-phillips documents before the WG even started.

No it didn't. Mark and I started 4646 on the very first day of the Iraq war.

> This in turn suggests that it should be feasible for an individual
> to
> prepare and submit an update without experiencing the surreal
> delays of
> the LTRU process, and without being subjected to undue slings and
> arrows.
> 

Well, as noted, "ever the optimist".....

Addison

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email