- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 06:54:46 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, IRI WG mailing list <public-iri@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > On 05.10.2010 06:17, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > >> ... >> My draft does not include the registration template. That has a lead to >> some complaints, but my reading of RFC 4395 is that it is not required, >> and http://www.w3.org/mid/455CCAAD.2040407@att.com Tony Hansen confirmed >> that. The template is not currently used outside the specification when >> it is part of an RFC, and in my case it would just be a TOC for the do- >> cument; I think it should be clarified that it is not needed in this >> case. >> ... > > Disagreeing :-) > > A registration template is very useful, because: > > - it forces the author to think about all the required fields, and > > - it makes it easy for reviewers to actually find the relevant > sections in the spec. It also makes it easier for IESG reviewers to verify correctness of all fields. So +1 for having a template. > Thus I'd like the template to become mandatory. Best Regards, Alexey -- IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html> Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com> JID: same as my email address
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 06:53:09 UTC