Subject: [Ltru] Resolving issue #944

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:24:06 -0700

Hi -

I plan to close issue #944 on length constraints, marking it resolved.
If you object, or believe that the recently-submitted -07
draft does not reflect WG consensus, please speak up NOW.

Randy, ltru co-chair

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:42:34 +0200

On 23:24 28/06/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>draft does not reflect WG consensus, please speak NOW.

Randy,
I certainly think it does not reflect any consensus. I accepted to 
represent this lack of consensus. I therefore whish to know what this short 
mail means. Is this a WGLC, what is its duration? What is your intended 
schedule concerning the charter anlaysis? What is your intended schedule to 
send these Draft to the IESG? Do you prefer to discuss this Draft within 
the WG or during an IETF last call?

A serious review of a document which has grown to the size of a book calls 
for stable version and a few days. Is this version final in the current 
author's mind or will there be a -08.txt to take into account the last 
changes?

I am also confuse because you say that #1026 is reopened. I must apologise 
but I have never been able to understand and I have not the secretariat 
facility to translate all these number in meaningful post. But I understand 
from this that -07.txt is not final? However I marvel that in an Internet 
global doctrinal document Jersey and Gernesey are to so important (I used 
to navigate there and I incorporated my first company in Jersey ...)

jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:45:45 -0700

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Resolving issue #944
>

> I certainly think it does not reflect any consensus. I accepted to

What, then, do you think the rough consensus on issue #944 was, if
not what's in the -07 draft?

> mail means. Is this a WGLC, what is its duration? What is your intended

This is not the working group last call.  Martin and I hope to be able to issue
a working group last call later this week, if working group members are able
to reach a rough consensus on the remaining open items and the editors are
able to do any necessary edits.

Our plan is to do a traditional two-week WG last call on the registry draft and the
initial registry simultaneously.

> schedule concerning the charter anlaysis? What is your intended schedule to

After we have completed our chartered deliverables, including the matching RFC,
we can decide whether we would like to ask our ADs to put additional deliverables
into our charter or make other charter modifications.

> send these Draft to the IESG? Do you prefer to discuss this Draft within

We very much want to send the registry draft and initial registry to the IESG as
soon as we've successfully wrapped up the working group last calls on both of
them.

> the WG or during an IETF last call?

Obviously discussion in the working group is preferable.

> author's mind or will there be a -08.txt to take into account the last

It depends on the WG consensus on the remaining issues.

> facility to translate all these number in meaningful post. But I understand

Go to https://rt.psg.com/ (user and password "ietf") to see the issue in the
tracker.  Issues generally contain a link to the relevant thread on the mailing
list.

> to navigate there and I incorporated my first company in Jersey ...)
...

Jersey and Guernsey are of interest here due to the anomalous way
ISO 3166 handles them.  If ISO 3166 handled them the same as
others, issue #1027 would be moot.

Randy