Re: [Ltru] Availability of 't' extension document and data

Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> Wed, 07 December 2011 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4186011E80A5 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:42:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A7Hj-xXoeq2b for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440B411E8094 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qadb15 with SMTP id b15so4042705qad.10 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:42:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/FMdZzBPprqGqHRb8zMpgZ+7XPJdYXO6M6SeIDalqKE=; b=r2owvtsvbAFtkcXdobtS/u4b1GOl1IIiiLVeD1ISxUDiFsGkjVHbTjEyptoFBkBbtF gQLKT9FwLtTRBOWQxeA/+hRYKT5edrkhYHIGYT8KHLcTwiFidnlYrHTwk0gyg+NLh5Cy mhgYo3sSJw4PsCF05TG+jDLKHq+0p35DSayYc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.169.99 with SMTP id ad3mr104448igc.6.1323283352193; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:42:32 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.219.67 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:42:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20111207111436.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.912aa587c9.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
References: <20111207111436.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.912aa587c9.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:42:32 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Qw3hyyltwhau0WW2f_RRgq0DLZc
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_FTJa1A4-vJVxPYoL6Dz07esFegAD49cFaZmiSsPLEQmg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f2343fd250a8b04b384ea48
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Availability of 't' extension document and data
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:42:34 -0000

The editorial process for the RFCs involves the authors, so there is no
danger of that happening (and I've never seen it happen in less than 2
months anyway). So I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one, Doug.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
*
*
*
[https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033]
*



On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:14, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:

> According to the IETF Datatracker, draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-07 ("BCP 47
> Extension T - Transformed Content") has been approved by IESG and
> forwarded to the RFC Editor queue.
>
> The time a document normally spends in the RFC Editor queue varies
> dramatically, and can be unexpectedly long (as BCP 47 veterans know),
> but the RFC Editor FAQ notes that "Typical time to publish is 1-2
> months."
>
> Section 2.9 of draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-07 says, "The data and
> specification will be available by the time this internet draft has been
> approved.  The description field is in the process of being added to
> CLDR."  The first sentence is repeated in Section 2.1.  This was an
> ongoing concern of mine during the draft process, which was partially
> addressed by including sample data in Section 2.9.
>
> According to the CLDR "Releases/Downloads" page, Version 2.1 of CLDR is
> scheduled to be released on February 1, 2012.  This is eight weeks from
> now.
>
> What is the likelihood that the data for the 't' extension actually will
> be made available in time for RFC publication?
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>