- From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:33:34 -0500
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org, uri-review@ietf.org
I disagree with the proposal. As you have noted, the uri@w3.org mailing list has been "upgraded" to serve a purpose for the W3C URI IG activity. While there may be a significant overlap between people interested in that, and folks who should be discussing IETF documents proposing new URI schemes, it is not a complete match, and the formal activities are different. Leslie. Martin Duerst wrote: > As noted by Dan, the uri-review@ietf.org mailing list has never > taken off. All the real discussions have been taking place on > this list. There was discussion on closing uri-review@w3.org, > my guess is that the only reason that discussion wasn't conclusive > was that a lot of peolpe who care about URIs and URI schemes > were just not on that list. > > So I suggest to use uri@w3.org as the list for URI scheme reviews; > the chance that a new URI scheme gets some good comments is much > higher on this list than on uri-review@ietf.org. > > Regards, Martin. > > P.S.: While uri@w3.org recently has been 'upgraded' to be the > W3C URI IG, it continues to serve as the mailing list for > the former IETF URL WG (just hosted by W3C). > > At 03:53 05/02/19, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > >On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 09:56 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote: > >> Should the process document request that the "last call" > >> announcement for documents defining permanent URIs be sent to > >> the URI review list? > > > >Yes, I suppose so. > > > >Which is the URI review list? > > > >At some point, I made a link to > > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/uri-review/current/maillist.html > > > > >but that has since gone 404. > > > >google finds > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review > > > >hmm... lots of spam... hmm... discussion of closing it > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00298.html > > > > > >Is this discussed in draft-hansen? Ah, yes... > > > > > > 3. If desired, send a copy of the template or a pointer to the > > Internet Draft (and containing section number) to the mailing > > list uri-review@ietf.org; participate in the discussion and > > review of the URI scheme; allow a reasonable period (at least 2 > > weeks) for discussion and comments. > > > > > http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines/ > > > > > > >So I guess that's where we are. OK. > > > >Please let's add the address of the HTTP archive of uri-review@ietf.org > >to draft-hansen, i.e. a commitment from the IETF to hold this part > >of the web site still, or at least leave redirection cookie-crumbs > >when it moves. > > > >-- > >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > >D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > > _______________________________________________ > Uri-review mailing list > Uri-review@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:57:13 UTC