W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2005

Re: [Uri-review] Re: FW: Last Call: 'Domain Name System Uniform Resource Identifiers' to Proposed Standard

From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:33:34 -0500
Message-ID: <422606FE.80708@thinkingcat.com>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org, uri-review@ietf.org

I disagree with the proposal.

As you have noted, the uri@w3.org mailing list has been
"upgraded" to serve a purpose for the W3C URI IG activity.

While there may be a significant overlap between people
interested in that, and folks who should be discussing
IETF documents proposing new URI schemes, it is not
a complete match, and the formal activities are different.


Leslie.

Martin Duerst wrote:
> As noted by Dan, the uri-review@ietf.org mailing list has never
> taken off. All the real discussions have been taking place on
> this list. There was discussion on closing uri-review@w3.org,
> my guess is that the only reason that discussion wasn't conclusive
> was that a lot of peolpe who care about URIs and URI schemes
> were just not on that list.
> 
> So I suggest to use uri@w3.org as the list for URI scheme reviews;
> the chance that a new URI scheme gets some good comments is much
> higher on this list than on uri-review@ietf.org.
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> P.S.: While uri@w3.org recently has been 'upgraded' to be the
>       W3C URI IG, it continues to serve as the mailing list for
>       the former IETF URL WG (just hosted by W3C).
> 
> At 03:53 05/02/19, Dan Connolly wrote:
>  >
>  >On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 09:56 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
>  >> Should the process document request that the "last call"
>  >> announcement for documents defining permanent URIs be sent to
>  >> the URI review list?
>  >
>  >Yes, I suppose so.
>  >
>  >Which is the URI review list?
>  >
>  >At some point, I made a link to
>  >
>  >https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/uri-review/current/maillist.html 
> 
>  >
>  >but that has since gone 404.
>  >
>  >google finds
>  >  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>  >
>  >hmm... lots of spam... hmm... discussion of closing it
>  > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00298.html
>  >
>  >
>  >Is this discussed in draft-hansen? Ah, yes...
>  >
>  >
>  >   3.  If desired, send a copy of the template or a pointer to the
>  >       Internet Draft (and containing section number) to the mailing
>  >       list uri-review@ietf.org; participate in the discussion and
>  >       review of the URI scheme; allow a reasonable period (at least 2
>  >       weeks) for discussion and comments.
>  >
>  >  
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines/ 
> 
>  >
>  >
>  >So I guess that's where we are. OK.
>  >
>  >Please let's add the address of the HTTP archive of uri-review@ietf.org
>  >to draft-hansen, i.e. a commitment from the IETF to hold this part
>  >of the web site still, or at least leave redirection cookie-crumbs
>  >when it moves.
>  >
>  >--
>  >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>  >D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:57:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT