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

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

From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:31:17 +0200
Message-ID: <42E14985.1000600@zurich.ibm.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com, uri@w3.org, "'Iesg (E-mail)'" <iesg@ietf.org>

Some context: we (the IESG) are hearing from the community
that, in general, we need more precision in the various types
of review process for assignments (IESG review, expert review,
IETF consensus). We seem to be leaving the era when leaving things
to common sense was acceptable to the community.

I think Leslie is correct to ask for precision in this
particular case, therefore. One more mailing list isn't a
big deal.

     Brian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM

Leslie Daigle wrote:
> 
> 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 Saturday, 23 July 2005 04:39:28 UTC

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