W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Tracking of pending media type/charset/URI registrations

From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:03:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4D67C4A5.5000900@isode.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi Larry,
I think you have to be a bit more careful about making extrapolation 
from a single registration.

Larry Masinter wrote:

>The "jms" URI scheme registration is another example of difficulty with registration: The registration didn't (in the opinion of the expert reviewer) meet the criteria for registered values.
"for the Permanent sub-registry" is the important part that you have 
omitted above.

>However, "it is already widely deployed" was enough to convince IESG to approve registration anyway.
While this is true, I don't think you should expect IESG to do the same 
every time. IESG can reject (and has rejected in the past, albeit a very 
small percantage of all registrations) truly broken registrations.

>However, response to expert review comments emails were lost, some comments not addressed, balls were dropped, the registry doesn't reflect "expert review" opinion, etc.
You are right that it would have been better if all this information 
could be visible in a trac or the like.

In this particular case, all relevant infomation could have been logged 
in the datatracker (IETF draft/RFC state management tool). It doesn't 
integrate well with email, so infomation has to be entered manually on a 
web page. But this is still doable.
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 20:14:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:09 UTC