Subject: Re: [Ltru] Next Steps

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:59:18 -0700

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

>>> Is this going to be a final submission for IANA Last Call, or are we
>>> going to go through the same drill all over again?  (Issue draft,
>>> wait for LC to be called, let two weeks pass, flood of comments,
>>> repeat...)
>
> The first WG Last Call brought up quite a few substantive issues, and
> resulted in significant changes in the document. It was therefore
> necessary to make another WG Last Call. The second WG Last only
> brought up editorial issues, which means we can move forward with the
> document.

I agree with this assessment.

I still think it was unfortunate that a large number of the substantive 
issues with draft-matching-11 were raised on the final day of that 
document's Last Call (March 30); that the Last Call for draft-12 was 
delayed until almost four weeks after Addison submitted the draft (I 
know Martin said there were "personal reasons" for this); and that the 
vast majority of editorial comments on draft-12 were not raised until 
May 16, again the final day of Last Call.

I understand the concept of deadlines being missed and pushed back when 
additional work is identified, but I really don't understand much of the 
recent "dead time" delay in moving this document forward.

Draft-13 has been posted and announced, and I hope it can be submitted 
to IETF no later than Wednesday (allowing time for Martin's weekend work 
and the "couple days" he wants to give everyone else for 
cross-checking).

Sorry to seem confrontational, but I'm very tired of the current "it is 
but it isn't" limbo of RFC 3066bis and BCP 47, and I'm sure others are 
too.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Editor, draft-ietf-ltru-initial

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