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

Re: Mailing ilst for review (was [Uri-review] Re: FW: Last Call: 'Domain Name System UniformResource ...)

From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:53:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4227A38D.7030303@thinkingcat.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: 'Martin Duerst' <duerst@w3.org>, uri@w3.org, uri-review@ietf.org

Larry,

I'm sympathetic to the concerns of having a too-quiet
mailing list for review.  But, whether the step is optional
or not in the review process (and, as a comment on the draft,
I would argue that it should not be optional), the
current proposal is for a review against an IETF registration
process:

> 5.2  Registration Procedures
> 
>    Someone wishing to register a URI scheme should:
>    1.  Check the IANA URI scheme registry to see whether or not there is
>        already an entry for the desired name.  If there is already an
>        entry under the name, choose a different URI scheme name.
>    2.  Prepare a URI scheme registration template, as specified in
>        Section 5.4.
>    3.  The URI scheme registration template may be contained in an
>        Internet Draft (alone, or as part of some other protocol
>        specification), but this is not necessary.
>    4.  To facilitate review, send a copy of the template or a pointer to
>        the containing document (with specific reference to the section
>        with the template) to the mailing list uri@w3.org, requesting
>        review.


Appropriately, that is calling for a review of the template, not
a general discussion of URIs or the relative merits of pursuing
one direction or another.

So, you are proposing (implicitly) that the IETF ask the W3C URI IG to
carry out a review process for its (the IETF's) registration process.

And I think that

	1/ The W3C URI IG has other interesting things to do!
	2/ Not every URI registrant should have to expose themselves
	   to that wide-ranging disscussion just to get their URI
	   scheme through IETF process, and
	3/ The basic mechanics of the mailing lists may differ --
	   e.g., in terms of membership management policies, archiving,
	   etc.

Leslie.




Larry Masinter wrote:
>>So my main question is what ideas and actual efforts you
>>are thinking about or proposing to fix the above situation.
> 
> 
> 
> I think RFC 2434 has an interesting discussion of the
> role (and limitations) of "mailing list review", and the
> reasons why it emphasizes "designated expert" and suggests:
> 
>    The designated expert can initiate and coordinate as
>    wide a review of an assignment request as may be necessary
>    to evaluate it properly. 
> 
> draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.txt calls for
> "expert review" and suggests "uri@w3.org" for optional mailing
> list review.
> 
> It's easy to change this to "uri-review@ietf.org" in the document,
> but we're not relying on the mailing list review as the primary
> filter (for the reasons laid out in RFC2434).
> 
> Larry
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2005 23:57:21 GMT

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