Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

On Aug 21, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> An RFC can be moved to "Historic" status (the formal term for  
>>>> "obsolete") without the need for a superseding RFC. See RFC2026  
>>>> "The Internet Standards Process", particularly sections 4.2.4 and  
>>>> 6.4.
>>>> ...
>>> It needs a Standards Action.
>>> I'm in the process of doing this with RFC 2731, asked the IESG for  
>>> advice, and got the recommendation to draft a document that would  
>>> replace RFC 2731.
>> Would you be willing to ask the IESG for advice on RFC 2854, in  
>> light of HTML5 containing an updated registration? Perhaps their  
>> opinion will be different, or perhaps not, in which case someone  
>> needs to draft a superseding document.
> I'll do that once we have made a decision not to simply revise RFC  
> 2854, which seems to be by far the simplest approach.

I don't see how it's simpler. The HTML5 draft already has an  
appropriate registration, matching what other W3C specs do, and it  
seems like obsoleting in favor of it with no RFC, or obsoleting with a  
one-line RFC pointing to it, would be simpler.

That being said, it seems like we need to make a WG decision to go one  
way or the other, and time is of the essence, since it will take some  
time to draft an appropriate document once we have decided what to do.

Chairs? Advice on how to get a decision?


Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 08:39:32 UTC