Subject: Re: [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:13:02 -0000

#146: Terminology and RFC 6365

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 OK.  I'll add a reference && terminology updates

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  nai                      |     Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Candidate WG Document    |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/146#comment:2>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:58:22 +0100

It does not make sense to close an issue if you are still waiting for input

radext issue tracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>radext mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:17:14 -0400

> It does not make sense to close an issue if you are still waiting for input

  I think this comment was about the normalization issue.

  The text in the current draft addresses Bernards comments directly.
It's the best we can do given our current knowledge.  So IMHO, the issue
should be closed.

  We could track a separate issue to "get feedback from i18n people".
But that's already on my short list for Vancouver.  As soon as I get an
answer, I'll report it to the list, and do a final update of the document.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:01:05 -0400

>>>>> "Alan" == Alan DeKok <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> It does not make sense to close an issue if you are still waiting

    Alan>   I think this comment was about the normalization issue.

    Alan>   The text in the current draft addresses Bernards comments
    Alan> directly.  It's the best we can do given our current
    Alan> knowledge.  So IMHO, the issue should be closed.

    Alan>   We could track a separate issue to "get feedback from i18n
    Alan> people".  But that's already on my short list for Vancouver.
    Alan> As soon as I get an answer, I'll report it to the list, and do
    Alan> a final update of the document.

I think I'd be fine with a new issue opened to track i18n review.
I agree additional review is required and don't believe we're done until
 we get that review.