Subject: Re: [Ltru] Edith Whitehead's proposed editorial changes to 4646bis i-d

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:29:03 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> made 
numerous comments, some positive and some negative, about CE Whitehead's 
proposed editorial changes.

I thought Randy had just gotten done saying that the time for editorial 
changes had passed.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:22:05 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Edith Whitehead's proposed editorial changes to 4646bisi-d
>

As co-chair:
Yes, I thought I had made that point emphatically.

As a technical contributor:
I think it should also be quite clear that I do not think *any*
of those changes are *necessary* at this stage.  However,
when someone makes the effort to do a careful review, I
think we owe them the courtesy of at least reviewing the
proposals and giving them a "sanity check" in case the
editors find themselves in a position to incorporate such changes.
As should be clear from my comments, it is possible for a well-intended
"purely editorial" change to have unintended negative consequences.

Consequently, (as a WG co-chair) I'd rather have comments on such
proposals on the record, rather than leaving them entirely to the
editors' discretion at this stage.

Randy