Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG

Peter Saint-Andre <> Tue, 05 April 2016 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B0912D6D9 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id corYh5OvXNz4 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB8312D6D3 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E928E8206; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:58:22 -0600 (MDT)
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:50:43 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:50:47 -0000

On 4/3/16 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>>>      I'm sure that the wg is likely to be ok with wg drafts, but
>>>>>      let's do the normal process. Please submit first as
>>>>>      individual draft and we will call later for wg adoption.
>>>>    For whatever my opinion as a participant is worth, that would be
>>>>    meaningless, time-wasting, ritual for its own sake.
>>> disagree. the step from individual to wg is the normal process and has
>>> no impact on technical work: the technical work can continue whatever
>>> the filename is. Let’s spend time on technical discussions on the
>>> content of the to-be-published draft.
>> I have no preference, but to be clear the -00 versions will be exactly what
>> is in the published RFCs so that we can more easily track changes.
> As AD for now, still, I'll say that I do have a preference, and a
> rather strong one: these are updates to documents the working group
> has already published.  The working group has already decided to
> update them.  Please just submit them as working group documents from
> the start.  Even going through motions here makes a statement that the
> working group is not working on what it agreed to work on.

-00 versions submitted.

These are as close as I could make the documents to the published RFCs. 
By the end of the week I will publish -01 versions incorporating the 
fixes previously outlined.