W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Draft registration for application/xenc+xml

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:39:04 -0400
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, xml-encryption@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020524183904.6CA0D859F4@aeon.w3.org>
On Friday 24 May 2002 12:21, Tim Bray wrote:
> > Also, Ian, in [3] what does it mean that the registration should be
> > part of the REC? That I should have an appendix in the spec with a copy
> > of my request? (seems odd...)
>
> I think that's the idea.  Why odd? -Tim

Not odd, but ....

Is the expectation that there will also be an orthogonal ietf-draft -> RFC 
or registration request document? If so, wouldn't a reference to it be 
sufficient? (If we're using the registration process, should the TR be 
dependent on that process: can't leave CR until the registration is issued? 
Or can the WG commit to the registration but the documents don't need to be 
inter-dependent? Or will a section within a W3C specification be an 
adequate referent for the IANA registry?

-- 

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 14:39:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:21 GMT