W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > January 2012

RE: W3C / IETF mutual review expectations

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:31:20 -0800
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D06A86D39FF@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Recently, there have been discussions about the policy around normative down-level references (e.g., normative references in W3C recommendations to Internet Drafts, but other examples.)

For example,


( and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0175.html).

I'm not sure what the best practice here is; I imagine, though, that a W3C document with such references, going to "last call", should notify IETF working groups responsible for advancing the document and that the "last call" document should note something about the status reported back?


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:01 PM
To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
Cc: Thomas Roessler
Subject: W3C / IETF mutual review expectations

The write-up on mutual review expectations that Mark and I did in October is finally (!) up on the wiki:

The document is meant to describe best current practice, and tries to steer clear of advice about parts of the process that we haven't exercised recently - such as the parts of the IETF process beyond Proposed Standard, most recently modified by RFC 6410.

If you have questions and comments, please raise them on this mailing list.

If you want to make edits to the document, you're welcome to (it's on a wiki!), but please announce them on this mailing list.

Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  (@roessler)
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 21:31:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:34 UTC