headers
Randy Presuhn | 1 May 21:02
Picon

Fw: IETF Meeting Survey

Hi -

forwarded for your information, in the hope of improving future
IETF meeting experiences...

Randy

> From: "Ray Pelletier" <rpelletier <at> isoc.org>
> To: <wgchairs <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:24 AM
> Subject: IETF Meeting Survey
>
> All;
> It has been suggested that if I really wanted to get feedback on the 
> Meeting Survey (and I do)  I should have it forwarded by the WG Chairs 
> to the working groups - so this is a request that you ask members of the 
> working groups to complete a short survey that focuses primarily, but 
> not exclusively, on their meeting experience in Dallas. 
> 
> I truly want the info to make the changes members of the community want, 
> if possible and greatly appreciate your assistance in this regard.
> 
> Those interested in taking the survey can find it at:
> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=649182049947
> 
> Thanks
> Ray Pelletier
> IETF Admininstrative Director
> 
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Constable | 2 May 00:15
Picon
Favicon

RE: Re: Fwd: LTRU Milestones past due (matching draft to IETFLast Call)

> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell <at> adelphia.net]

> Mark Davis and I have been asking to have draft-matching advanced to WG
> Last Call for a few weeks now, with no response.  No additional comments
> have appeared on the list since Addison submitted draft-matching-12 on
> April 6.  Without this delay, we might have been able to hit the end of
> April.

For my part, I am finally working on preparing the text for ISO/FDIS 639-3, and I have to figure out what to do
with a reference to RFC 3066bis. When I prepared the DIS text in September 2004, I had a reference to 3066bis
with a note to myself "update reference once final RFC has been published." I assumed when I wrote that that
the final RFC would have been published within the next 12 months, but here it is 18 months later.
Referencing the internet draft on the IETF site isn't really satisfying: it's not intended as a long-term
reference, it doesn't reflect that the doc has been approved, and the draft has an expiration date of April
17 -- it has expired!
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 2 May 02:00
Picon

Re: Re: Fwd: LTRU Milestones past due (matching draft toIETFLast Call)

Hi -

It has *not* expired.  The registry-related drafts are in the RFC editor queue.
Documents in the RFC editor queue do not expire.

Randy, ltru co-chair

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter Constable" <petercon <at> microsoft.com>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell <at> adelphia.net>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Fwd: LTRU Milestones past due (matching draft toIETFLast Call)
>
> > From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell <at> adelphia.net]
>
> > Mark Davis and I have been asking to have draft-matching advanced to WG
> > Last Call for a few weeks now, with no response.  No additional comments
> > have appeared on the list since Addison submitted draft-matching-12 on
> > April 6.  Without this delay, we might have been able to hit the end of
> > April.
>
> For my part, I am finally working on preparing the text for ISO/FDIS 639-3, and I have to figure out what to do
with a reference
to RFC 3066bis. When I prepared the DIS text in September 2004, I had a reference to 3066bis with a note to
myself "update reference
once final RFC has been published." I assumed when I wrote that that the final RFC would have been published
within the next 12
months, but here it is 18 months later. Referencing the internet draft on the IETF site isn't really
satisfying: it's not intended
as a long-term reference, it doesn't reflect that the doc has been approved, and the draft has an expiration
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Martin Duerst | 2 May 12:17
Picon
Gravatar

2nd WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching

Dear LTRU WG,

Many of you have expected a Second WG Last Call, and here it is.
Sorry for the delay due to personal reasons.

I have looked through the discussion of the previous last call,
and tried to keep track of everything at
http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp/2006/IETF/ltru/.
If somebody thinks something is missing (or wrong), or would like
some details to be added, or has some questions, please tell me.
The substantive changes require another WG Last Call.

The duration of this Last Call is two (2) weeks, it will end on
Tuesday, May 16, 11:00 UTC (20:00 Japan, 13:00 France,...,
4:00am US Pacific, and so on).

Please read the draft at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-12.txt
carefully and send in comments, with a subject indicating
the issue. Please also send in a comment if you have read the
draft and haven't found any issue.

If you have read earlier drafts, please note that this draft
is a serious revision, better read on its own.

I hope that this time, we can successfully complete this last call
and send the draft to the IESG.

Regards,    Martin.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
McDonald, Ira | 2 May 20:08
Favicon

RE: Re: Fwd: LTRU Milestones past due (matching draft toIE TFLast Call)

Hi Randy,

Although I've been repeatedly assured over the years
that I-Ds in the RFC Editor's queue don't "expire",
nothing in the compulsory boilerplate on an I-D and
nothing at the Internet-Drafts repository _tells_
me that.  The literal text says it's expired.

Lousy I-D boilerplate if you ask me.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald <at> sharplabs.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn <at> mindspring.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:00 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Fwd: LTRU Milestones past due (matching draft
> toIETFLast Call)
> 
> 
> Hi -
> 
> It has *not* expired.  The registry-related drafts are in the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Addison Phillips | 2 May 21:29
Picon
Favicon

RE: 2nd WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching

All,

Martin has asked me to enumerate the differences (comments received since
draft-12 was created) that are already incorporated into draft-13. This is
straightforward: Debbie Garside sent me a small number of editorial comments
in a paragraph on page 9. This paragraph used to say:

---
   Applications, protocols, or specifications, in addressing their
   particular requirements, can offer pre-processing or configuration
   options.  For example, an implementation could allow a user to
   associate or map a particular language range to a different value.
   Such a user might wish to associate the language range subtags 'nn'
   (Nynorsk Norwegian) and 'nb' (Bokmal Norwegian) with the more general
   subtag 'no' (Norwegian).  Or perhaps the user could associate the
   range "zh-Hans" (Chinese as written in the Simplified script) with
   the language tag "zh-CN" (Chinese as used in China, where the
   Simplified script is predominant) because content is available with
   that tag.  Documentation on how the ranges or tags are altered,
   prioritized, or compared in the subsequent match in such an
   implementation will assist users in making the best configuration
   choices.
---

The changes are in the last two sentences, making the bottom part of the
graf read:

---
   Or perhaps a user would want to associate
   requests for the range "zh-Hans" (Chinese as written in the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Cowan | 4 May 07:02

Re: 2nd WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching

Martin Duerst scripsit:

> Please read the draft at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-12.txt
> carefully and send in comments, with a subject indicating
> the issue. Please also send in a comment if you have read the
> draft and haven't found any issue.

Here are my comments, all editorial in nature:

1.  In Section 2.1, the first sentence of the first graf and the first
sentence of the second graf are overlapping and partly contradictory.
I suggest changing the first to:

	A "basic language range" (originally described by HTTP/1.1
	[RFC 2616] and later [RFC 3066bis] has the same syntax as an
	[RFC 3066bis] language tag or is the single character "*".

and removing the first sentence of the second graf altogether, but
expanding the following pronoun "They" to "Basic language ranges"
for clarity.

2.  In Section 2.2, for "useful in specifying" read "useful for
specifying".

3.  In Section 3, the second graf is redundant and confuses the
number of matching schemes with the number of *types* of matching
schemes.  I suggest it be removed in favor of changes to Section 3.1
following.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Mark Davis | 4 May 18:34
Favicon

Re: 2nd WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching

My comments are

a) version 12 of the document is fine the way it is, but
b) I have no real objection to any of John's suggested changes, except 
the general one that we could making minor incremental improvements to 
this document until we die of exhaustion, *none* of which are or have 
been worth delaying the publication of 3066bis! (Let's get this damn 
thing out the door!)

Mark

P.S. Not sure why we are really concerned with a German noble (Graf) in 
this document ;-)

John Cowan wrote:
> Martin Duerst scripsit:
>
>   
>> Please read the draft at
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-12.txt
>> carefully and send in comments, with a subject indicating
>> the issue. Please also send in a comment if you have read the
>> draft and haven't found any issue.
>>     
>
> Here are my comments, all editorial in nature:
>
> 1.  In Section 2.1, the first sentence of the first graf and the first
> sentence of the second graf are overlapping and partly contradictory.
> I suggest changing the first to:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Addison Phillips | 4 May 19:41
Picon
Favicon

RE: 2nd WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching

> a) version 12 of the document is fine the way it is, but

+1 to that... but...

I don't mind minor editorial comments like these, since they will not prevent us from moving forward and may
assist us at IETF Last Call by making the document better. This is, after all, a Last Call for comments. The
only things that will prevent us finishing this document off are substantive comments that cannot be
addressed or "major" editorial comments. Substantive comments we can consider on their own merits and I
think we would approach a major edit with great caution.

Our goal here, IMO, should be to submit draft-13 in the best possible shape for an IETF Last Call and to
convince the chairs that the document is ready for its real Last Call and subsequent adoption. To that end,
clarification of the text is welcome: I do not want to have multiple IETF Last Calls. I'm kind of tired of that.

"Bring out 'yer dead."

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis <at> icu-project.org]
> Sent: 2006年5月4日 9:34
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] 2nd WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Addison Phillips | 4 May 19:43
Picon
Favicon

RE: 2nd WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching

Hi John,

Thanks for the comments. 

Comments on my proposed disposition of each follow.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan <at> ccil.org]
> Sent: 2006?5?3? 22:02
> To: Martin Duerst
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] 2nd WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-matching
> 
> Martin Duerst scripsit:
> 
> > Please read the draft at
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-12.txt
> > carefully and send in comments, with a subject indicating
> > the issue. Please also send in a comment if you have read the
> > draft and haven't found any issue.
> 
> Here are my comments, all editorial in nature:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane