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

Martin Duerst <> Mon, 10 July 2006 08:37 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzrGj-0003ga-7I; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:37:29 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzrGe-0003dA-Bo for; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:37:24 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fzr9b-00027w-0n for; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:30:10 -0400
Received: from (scmse2 []) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id k6A8U21k023332; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:30:02 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ( by via smtp id 1be7_47da16a6_0fee_11db_97b4_0014221f2a2d; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:30:01 +0900
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6A8Tv3d009525; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:29:58 +0900
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:39:58 +0900
To: Ted Hardie <>, Mark Davis <>
From: Martin Duerst <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by theIESG
In-Reply-To: <p06230902c0d69b004eab@[]>
References: <> <> <> <p06230902c0d69b004eab@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
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 20:42 06/07/09, Ted Hardie wrote:
>At 2:22 PM +0900 7/8/06, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>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
>This isn't quite true.

Sorry I got this wrong. Thanks for the clarification, Ted.    Martin.

>Someone filing an appeal has two months to do so,
>but that doesn't mean there is an automatic wait of two months; for
>drafts which are expedited (commonly because of dependencies
>on that draft holding up other publication), the RFC could appear quite
>quickly.  Even normal processing can occur before two months if the
>queue happens to be well-drained at the moment the draft enters.
>What that implies is that an upheld appeal after publication results in
>a new document obsoleting the old one, rather than an update prior
>                       regards,
>                               Ted

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

Ltru mailing list