W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Last Call: draft-w3c-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-00 ready to submit?

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:53:52 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020326185211.0385f6a0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 05:51 PM 3/26/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>The security considerations section looks a bit risky and imprecise; a 
>flag red enough to attract attention, but having no answers.

In the absence of specific objections, I thought they were rather well 
drafted by Aaron.

IETF security considerations aren't always required to solve the security 
concerns, but make a reasonable attempt at indicating what concerns there 
may be.

>I'd like to see two things:
>
>   o an overview of the ietf process, preferably from someone who has done 
> this before.  Are we cooked to start this?

The IETF process is relatively fluid.  RFC 2026 is the definitive process 
document.

For a MIME type registration, which in this case may be something less than 
a standards-track RFC, the process is set out in RFC 2048.  Note that this 
prtoposed MIME type is in the "IETF tree", which raises the bar compared 
with some other options, but not too greatly.  There are two main points to 
be satisfied:

(1) ample opportunity for IETF community review with no killer objections 
being surfaced,

(2) to pass IESG review with no major objections.

I see nothing in this draft that would cause serious objections to be 
raised.  Some IETF people might ask "why, what's the point?" but that, IMO, 
isn't sufficient to block approval.  One of the reasons I recommend early 
I-D publication is so we can get maximum opportunity to respond to any 
objections that may be raised.

>   o Your current draft copied to an archive and review by at least two 
> members of the WG.  If we can get volunteers asap, I can put it on the 
> agenda for approval this Friday.

I have reviewed it and think it's fine for initial I-D publication.  (I 
have made some comments which I think can be accounted for in further rounds.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 14:00:30 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:22 EDT