- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:15:07 +1100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[ trimming down the CC: list; does no MUA respect Reply-To any more? ] Thanks for reminding me. Language like that below is what I had in mind, and will put into the next draft, if that's what we want to do. On 02/12/2008, at 7:10 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > > 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 > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 00:15:46 UTC