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

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote (slightly 
rearranged):

>> As we now know, 4646bis took a year or so longer than 4646.
>
> No it didn't. Mark and I started 4646 on the very first day of the 
> Iraq war. You forget that there were a dozen or so 
> draft-davis-phillips documents before the WG even started.

I didn't forget.  My copy of draft-phillips-langtags-00 is dated 
2003-12-17.  The final draft which became RFC 4646, 
draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14, was approved by IESG on 2005-11-15, or 699 
days later.  We did wait another 10 months for RFC numbers, but that 
time was mostly spent working on the relatively uncontroversial 
draft-4647 and planning for LTRU 2.0.

Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-00, the first LTRU 2.0 draft, was dated 
2006-09-11 -- perhaps coincidentally, the same date RFC 4646 was 
published.  Draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23 was approved by IESG on 
2009-06-18 (the formal announcement came a week later).  That's a span 
of 1,011 days, or 315 days longer for LTRU 2.0 than for LTRU 1.0.  And 
of course, we're still waiting for RFC numbers.

I'd be willing to bet we spent more days actually *working* on the first 
set of drafts than on the second, but we had a LOT of downtime over the 
past 3 years.  Some issues were left unresolved and undiscussed for 
weeks at a time.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ