Hi - > From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:49 AM > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred value for YU > > Hi Tex, > > I don't think this is probably appropriate, at least for this list to consider. Tex's posting came after the document shepherd (co-chair Martin Duerst) had sent the information to our AD requesting that the IESG consider publishing it. So although the IESG has not yet (AFAIK) acted on the request, much less issued an IETF last call, I can understand why ietf@xxxxxxxx might be included. I have already responded to it on both lists, even though I think the issue is probably of little interest to most on the ietf@xxxxxxxx list. Unless instructed to do otherwise by our AD, I would suggest that all follow-on discussion be directed to ltru@xxxxxxxx > 1. You haven't posted to LTRU's mailing list, only ietf-languages@, yet. Tex's message was posted to *both* lists. > 2. Even if draft-4645bis is approved, the process for language tags > (in either RFC 4646 or its proposed successor) allow you to register > the information you want, if you think it was inappropriately omitted. ... Correct. Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf