- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:03:01 +0100
- 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