Hi - > From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "IETF General Discussion Mailing List" <[email protected]>; "Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:59 PM > Subject: Re: RFC 1345 mnemonics table not consistent with Unicode 3.2.0 ... > In any case, I have always stated that I for one would be more than willing to > work on this (and I happen to have considerable expertise in this area) were > it > not for the difficulty I predict will arise in getting it through the process. > Now, perhaps in your opinion my priorities are completely messed up, but with > all due respect, that's just not a call you get to make. ...
Since I've spoken up much earlier in this thread... I have no objection to the idea of an independent submission for an *informational* RFC updating or superceding RFC 1345, if there are folks willing to do the work and who think it would be worthwhile. However, I also have no interest in spending any time working on it or reviewing it. Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
