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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:30 GMT