Re: Rough sketch for an I-D (a successor of RFC 3023)

On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 17:33, MURATA Makoto wrote:
[...]
> > MM> I think that further discussion about the content of this I-D
> > MM> should be moved to the IETF-XML-MIME ML.
> > 
> > I prefer a list and a process that I understand well.
> 
> I prefer an IETF ML an RFC at this stage of the game.  First, Ned's 
> update is not an RFC yet.  Second, if we are going to create an RFC 
> (as suggested in the TAG minutes), an IETF ML is a better place.  

I have no strong preference either way, but as far as I know,
the ietf-xml-mime mailing list isn't any more or less
endorsed by the IETF than any other public mailing list.
ietf-xml-mime-request@imc.org is hosted by
the Internet Mail Consortium.

  http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/index.html

It's not the mailing list of an IETF working group,
nor is it endorsed by the IESG in any particular way,
as far as I know.

Regardless of official endorsement, the scope
of ietf-xml-mime seems to match this task quite
nicely. I guess I mildly prefer ietf-xml-mime to www-tag
for the bulk of the discussion. I'm sure Chris
and others will keep the TAG informed to the extent
we need to know stuff.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/