- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:10:02 -0600
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Atom Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:11 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: [...] > I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding registration > requirements, as I think that's the biggest remaining sticking point. > Note that it was previously "IESG Approval"; I've changed it to "IETF > Review" (nee "IETF Consensus") so that a document is required. Also, I > believe this still accommodates other standards orgs (like the W3C) > using their processes to publish documents that register entries, just > as with media types. That would surprise me; while there is a significant overlap in the communities, the IETF does not, in general, accept consensus in the W3C community in place of consensus in its own community. The media type registration spec phrases it this way: 3.1. Standards Tree The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet community. Registrations in the standards tree MUST be approved by the IESG and MUST correspond to a formal publication by a recognized standards body. In the case of registration for the IETF itself ... -- http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=4288#page-4 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 20:10:29 UTC