Subject: [Enum] 2916-bis-02?

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:03:32 +0100

Hi Folks,
   When can we expect the -02 version of 2916-bis, with the syntax 
described in the YOK notes?

Also, I'm puzzled; in -01 the last paragraph before 2.4.2.1 states 
that an empty string is valid,
but this conflicts with the meeting notes and with the ABNF (both in 
-01 and at the YOK meeting).

I did raise this on the list, but I guess folks were too busy with 
policy discussions to notice.
=> I ASSUME that this paragraph is gone and the new ABNF is as 
proposed at the meeting as the (A) option.

all the best,
   Lawrence
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roke Manor Research    : This information is provided "as is" and is not
<mailto:[email-masked]>: intended to create any contractual or legal
<tel:+441794833666>    : relationship.

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:11:27 +0200

> described in the YOK notes?

IAB has requested, based on discussions with ITU-T, some slight wording 
changes in the IANA Consideration Section. When I have the exact words, 
I will make a new version available.

Sorry for the delay. I needed vacation in August. Got it. Feel more 
relaxed.

    paf