- From: iri issue tracker <trac+iri@trac.tools.ietf.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 02:29:29 -0000
- To: masinter@adobe.com
- Cc: public-iri@w3.org
#127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
Comment (by masinter@…):
I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
This simplifies the process.
DELETE
3. Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
document (with specific reference to the section with the
template) to the mailing list uri-review@ietf.org, requesting
review. In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
lists as appropriate. For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
syntactical issues could be discussed on uri@w3.org; schemes for
a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
protocol. Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
4. Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
given in this document.
and
OLD
5. Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
to document containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org, specifying
whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
NEW
3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
to the document containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org, specifying
the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
...).
--
--------------------------------+------------------
Reporter: stpeter@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: 4395bis | Version:
Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution:
Keywords: |
--------------------------------+------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 02:29:58 UTC