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: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:32:02 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050309063053.090442c0@localhost>
To: "Hammond, Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>, 'Leslie Daigle' <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org

At 21:08 05/03/08, Hammond, Tony wrote:
 >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.

Both lists are available. The only thing that can happen is that
you get a lot of comments back. But as we are changing to a new
registration policy, it's not that you have to do everything any
commenter said.

Regards,    Martin.

 >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 21:32:25 GMT

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