- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:03:01 -0800
- To: uri@w3.org
An updated version was just sent to the Internet Drafts editor; versions currently available also at: http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.htm l http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.txt http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.xml (editable) http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.ful l.xml (viewable) This involved a significant change to the proposal, based on a more careful review of RFC 2434 (BCP 26) on "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section", which recommends not inventing a new process. The goal has been to minimize unnecessary process, so, in this draft, the process required for all registrations is "Expert Review", with different guidelines for 'Permanent', 'Provisional', and 'Historical'. The Designated Expert may recommend IETF review and IESG approval if wanted. (Don't reply to this summary; read the actual text, please.) In addition, all values are unique (no duplicates) unless the IESG approves changing an existing registration to point out the other usages or allows transfer. I also tried to incorporate most of Roy's suggestions as well as some of the others; however, I didn't add another level (well, except for 'historical'), but instead tried to make the process simpler and more deterministic. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 06:07:44 UTC