Re: [PLS1.0] i18n comment: 3066 or its successor

Issue R103-20
>From Richard Ishida (2006-03-21):

Proposed Classification: Clarification / Typo / Editorial 

Resolution: Accept

We accept you request and we'll make the following changes: 

* In fourth para, Section 4.1 [1] 
   We will replace 'RFC 3066 [RFC3066]' with 'IETF Best Current Practice
* In the references in Section 6.1 [2] 
   We will add a normative reference to [BCP47] as in [3]

Is it an acceptable resolution? 

Please indicate whether you are satisfied with the VBWG's resolution,
whether you think there has been a misunderstanding, or whether you wish
to register an objection. 


Paolo Baggia, editor PLS spec.

From: <> 
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:42:19 +0000
Message-Id: <> 

Comment from the i18n review of:

Comment 20
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
4.1, 4th para

s/RFC 3066/RFC 3066 or its successor/

(Note that 'its successor' has already been approved by the IETF and is
just pending publication.)

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to <> Thank you<>

Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 14:56:21 UTC