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: Hammond, Tony <T.Hammond@nature.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:08:35 -0000
Message-ID: <125F7834E11A5741A7D79412EE3504F90F26D0EB@UK1APPS2.nature.com>
To: 'Leslie Daigle' <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org, 'Martin Duerst' <duerst@w3.org>

Hi All:

I'm assuming that until the IETF gets to decide which list to post out to
for IETF review of any new URI scheme, a provisional strategy for the ornery
folks would be to publish on both lists - assuming, of course, that both
lists are still available.

Cheers,

Tony



> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Leslie Daigle
> Sent: 04 March 2005 21:11
> To: Dan Connolly
> Cc: Larry Masinter; uri@w3.org; 'Martin Duerst'; uri-review@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Mailing ilst for review (was [Uri-review] Re: 
> FW: Last Call: 'Domain Name System UniformResource ...)
> 
> 
> 
> Howdy,
> 
> We-ell...
> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> > 
> >> 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!
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 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:
> 
> 	. high level issues with URIs of mutual interest (as
> 	  opposed to specific schemes)
> 
> 	. the fact that your list of URI schemes was somewhat
> 	  more complete (or differently complete) than the
> 	  list on IANA's pages.
> 
> 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).
> 
> And, the interest group has gone from being something 
> invitational to being the uri@w3.org list.
> 
> I'm fine with where things have landed -- I have NO issue
> with uri@w3.org being the W3C URI IG!  But, I do have an 
> issue with lining up our original discussion and claiming 
> that it matches where we wound up!
> 
> > 
> >>     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
> > 
> > 
> > I guess I can see that point. I'm not sure whether I agree.
> > 
> >>     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.
> 
> For example.
> 
> Leslie.
> 

********************************************************************************   
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and 
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan 
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan 
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS   
********************************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 12:09:13 GMT

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