I think it's worth looking at what draft-resnick-on-consensus
says about the nature of rough consensus. It tells us why
reasoned objections are more important than +1 messages
(or -1 messages for that matter).
By the same token, it seems that a reasoned message saying
why something is important
Title: Re:
draft-gellens-negotiating-human-language-01
Hi Doug,
Thanks very much. So, if I understand, your suggestions
would be:
(1) Change the text for the possible new 'humintlang' attribute
from:
The humintlang
attribute value must be a single RFC 3066
[RFC3066] language tag in US-ASCII
Hi Warren,
I think IESG do ask for comments, and think that even +1 is a comment,
I prefer if the draft was a WG darft only participants out of the WG
can support. However, you SHOULD mention why you support that, is it
related to a technology, RFC or a WG works, SHOWing interest is
important to
In addition to what said, I think that the most important think is
that the submitted draft be examined by the community, or read by the
community, this is what IESG needs to know the feeling in the
community after being read. I hope all drafts be read at least by 3 of
the community (not sure of
--On Saturday, February 23, 2013 08:04 + Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
By the same token, it seems that a reasoned message saying
why something is important and valuable would help the IESG,
if the document is on a somewhat obscure topic. However, as
John
Hi Randall,
You might want to reference BCP 47 instead of RFC 5646, but this is up to you.
Technically the Registry was created by RFC 4646, the predecessor to 5646, and
it does not actually include tags, but rather subtags which are used to
assemble tags. You can have a tag of just en, which
Hi SM,
Thanks for your comments. Some responses are inline.
On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:29 PM, SM wrote:
At 14:30 16-01-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on 'Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols'.
The document is being considered for
Hi, with a quick review, and many comments and points, I think the one
single part that I would have some questions about is in the intro:
The guidance provided in
this document is generic and can be used to inform the design of any
protocol to be used anywhere in the world, without
Hi Alissa,
At 09:10 23-02-2013, Alissa Cooper wrote:
The authors have re-written that sentence several times and in
different ways already. Do you have a specific suggestion about how
to improve it?
Short answer, if nobody else said anything about the sentence I
suggest leaving it as it is.
Title: RE:
draft-gellens-negotiating-human-language-01
Hi Doug,
At 8:20 AM -0700 2/23/13, Doug Ewell wrote:
You might want to reference BCP 47
instead of RFC 5646, but this is up to you.
When I reference RFC 5646, the actual reference includes it as
both RFC and BCP.
I would actually suggest
Very good initiative.
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace
new tools to collaborate.
Regards,
as
On 22/02/2013 20:35, IETF Chair wrote:
Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would be possible to
provide periodic status reports
That means essentially the same thing. Check to make sure your other reviewers
feel that wording is OK.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
-Original Message-
From: Randall Gellens ra...@qti.qualcomm.com
Sent: 2/23/2013 20:34
To: Doug Ewell
12 matches
Mail list logo
