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

Re: Mailing ilst for review

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:59:10 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050307003944.082ada40@localhost>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri-review@ietf.org

Hello Leslie,

At 04:35 05/03/05, Leslie Daigle wrote:

 >Dan Connolly wrote:

 >> Well, actually, this IG is chartered to provide exactly this sort of review:
 >> "The scope of the URI Interest Group encompasses:
 >>     * review of URI/IRI issues between W3C and the IETF, including 
monitoring maintenance of the IANA URI scheme registry"
 >>  -- http://www.w3.org/2004/07/uri-ig-charter.html#scope

It seems possible to read this sentence that way (apparently
Dan has done that). But the (grammatical) object of "review" is
"issues between", and one of the issues identified is "monitoring".
This is not at all the same as "review of URI scheme registrations".

So while I think this allows the W3C URI IG to be involved in
such review (which is often a good start to look at more general
issues), it does definitely not say that the W3C URI IG responsible
for such reviews.


 >Perhaps we should have bone through a more formal review of
 >that IG agenda between the initial proposal (when the IETF
 >identified participants), and the instantiation of the
 >IG some 2.5 to 3 YEARS later :-)
 >
 >Because, at the time I recall reviewing the charter (some
 >3 years ago), that text described:

That was a charter for a different group, namely the URI
CG (Coordination Group). That group was instatiated, and
had a few teleconferences, and produced some documents,
but then died down because of lack of critical mass.
So we then decided to try with an IG rather than a CG.
That change was announced at the URI BOF at the IETF in
San Diego last year.

 >	. high level issues with URIs of mutual interest (as
 >	  opposed to specific schemes)

This is still very much of interest, but as said above, such
issues often turn up when looking at individual schemes.

 >	. the fact that your list of URI schemes was somewhat
 >	  more complete (or differently complete) than the
 >	  list on IANA's pages.

I guess that's what led to the use of the word "monitoring"
in the text cited above.

 >In the intervening time, both issues have had progress (IANA's
 >list is getting better; as you know, the IETF APPs area has
 >been working on some of the registration issues and trying
 >to ensure that the relevant schemes appear in the IANA
 >registry, etc -- Larry's draft is one piece of that effort).

Thanks for this great work!


 >>>     3/ The basic mechanics of the mailing lists may differ --
 >>>        e.g., in terms of membership management policies, archiving,
 >>>        etc.
 >>
 >> That one is also covered in the charter too:
 >> "Note: the mailing lists uri@w3.org and public-iri@w3.org follow the 
rules of IETF applicable to mailing list usage (section 8. NOTICES AND 
RECORD KEEPING, RFC2026)."
 >
 >And some more, apparently -- the IETF does not require checking
 >for archivability as a requirement to post.

Does the IETF (explicitly or implicitly) prohibit checking for
archivability? My understanding is that the IETF implicitly
assumes archivability, because it requires archives to be
available. With that check, we are just making sure posters
understand what happens, because we had some complaints about
mails getting public on other lists that we run. If that's
really a problem for the IETF, we'll try and see whether
we can fix it.

 >For example.

Any others? We definitely don't want to do anything wrong.


Regards,    Martin. 
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2005 16:40:40 GMT

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