W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Last call issue: draft-hansen-2717bis-2718-bis-uri-guidelines

From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:00:39 -0400
Message-ID: <42E00CF7.6020304@thinkingcat.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: "'Iesg (E-mail)'" <iesg@ietf.org>, tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com, uri@w3.org

Larry,

My point is not whether the mailing list discussion is
optional or not -- it's about setting expectations for
the outcome of that discussion.

"Review" against what?  Review against generally held
technical opinion about URIs, or review against the
registration process in your BCP.

Leslie.

Larry Masinter wrote:
> Hi Leslie,
> 
> I thought we had responded already, but just in case, please
> note that the formal process for registration is "expert review",
> not "mailing list review".
> 
> 
>>Mailing list review is RECOMMENDED prior to registration, but may also be
>>required by the 'Designated Expert' during the 'Expert Review'
>>period.
> 
> 
> The document explicitly states that the mailing list review is
> not formally required. I expect the designated expert to ask for
> expert review wherever it seems appropriate, e.g., a URI for
> a standards-track protocol should also be reviewed by the appropriate
> mailing list(s) for that protocol.
> 
> I suppose we could make it even clearer, but I'd really like
> to encourage mailing list review even if it isn't formally required.
> 
> Larry
> 
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2005 21:05:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC