Subject: [Ltru] Re: Route 66

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:25:48 -0700

Misha Wolf <Misha dot Wolf at reuters dot com> wrote:

> Will we ask for a number ending in 66?  If so, for which of the RFCs?

I understand that the RFC Editor is solely responsible for issuing RFC
numbers, and can pick any number imaginable.  I don't suppose it would
hurt to ask, though, keeping the 1766 -> 3066 legacy in mind.

I note that the new successor to RFC 2234, often mentioned in this
group, is 4234.

Definitely the appropriate document for this would be draft-registry
(not -initial or -matching).

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:00:22 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> I don't suppose it would hurt to ask, though, keeping the
> 1766 -> 3066 legacy in mind.

Not very essential, it stays BCP 47, and it will be replaced
next year by 3066ter.  The URL issue in -initial is worse, if
IANA doesn't keep the old URL for the new registry numerous
links will go to the old 3066-registry or break.  Bye, Frank

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:25:59 +0200

>hurt to ask, though, keeping the 1766 -> 3066 legacy in mind.

Dear all,
I cannot object "Route 66" is not a perfect name concept for the 
American Globalization document which, at perfect time, sides the 
IESG with the USG's positions to the eyes of the world.

Genuine arrogance or total inconsciousness, such a thread does not 
help pretending the IETF is multicultural/multinational. Why not to 
add St John the Evangelist among the authors and to wait for the RFC 
4666 number? It would be perfect mnemonic for the world to think of 
contents, protocols, Google searches leaking cultural/racial readers' 
characteristics as "4666 Marked".
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:28:19 -0700

Jefsey -

I am very disappointed that, after recent attempts at constructive
postings, you find it necessary to revert to such invective. You
are hereby warned, in accordance with RFC 3934, that your
posting privileges to the ltru working group mailing list may be
revoked, for a period of up to 30 days, if your disruptive behaviour
persists.

Randy, ltru co-chair

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 4:25 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] "666 Marked meta-spam" (was Route 66)
>