Hi Rob,
No worries. It's valid to ask: our group doesn't normally review
IETF documents.
I had to do some digital archaeology to find where the request originated. It was requested by Mark Nottingham via the liaison list public-ietf-w3c@xxxxxx on 9 October 2024 and amended by an email from Ted Hardie [1]. That request didn't come directly to I18N, so I saw it as a set of review requests in our queue.
From that note, I see that I probably sent these notes to the wrong list? Apparently art@ or maybe iesg@ are the appropriate targets. To be honest, these reviews are problematic, since, as noted, our tooling is set up around W3C processes (and a few other group's, e.g. WHATWG, Unicode, and [rarely] ECMA TC39).
thanks,
Addison
[1]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2024Oct/0001.html
Hi,
Not to be a jerk here, but you also used the passive voice. Your message said "was requested to review several IETF documents nearing or in IETF Last Call." This one is just an I-D. So, who requested this review? Was it the IETF's W3C liaison?
thanks,Rob
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 2:33 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Addison,
Why do you think this document is near IETF Last Call?
thanks,Rob
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 2:28 PM Addison Phillips <addisoni18n@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
The W3C Internationalization Working Group (of which I am chair) was requested to review several IETF documents nearing or in IETF Last Call.
This email represents the issues our working group noticed in our review of:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-dispatch-modern-network-unicode/
-- Addison Phillips Chair (W3C Internationalization WG) Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture.
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
