- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:56:31 -0500
- To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org, 'Martin Duerst' <duerst@w3.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> So, you are proposing (implicitly) that the IETF ask the W3C URI IG to
> carry out a review process for its (the IETF's) registration process.
>
> And I think that
>
> 1/ The W3C URI IG has other interesting things to do!
Well, actually, this IG is chartered to provide exactly this sort of
review:
"The scope of the URI Interest Group encompasses:
* review of URI/IRI issues between W3C and the IETF, including
monitoring maintenance of the IANA URI scheme registry"
-- http://www.w3.org/2004/07/uri-ig-charter.html#scope
> 2/ Not every URI registrant should have to expose themselves
> to that wide-ranging disscussion just to get their URI
> scheme through IETF process, and
I guess I can see that point. I'm not sure whether I agree.
> 3/ The basic mechanics of the mailing lists may differ --
> e.g., in terms of membership management policies, archiving,
> etc.
That one is also covered in the charter too:
"Note: the mailing lists uri@w3.org and public-iri@w3.org follow the
rules of IETF applicable to mailing list usage (section 8. NOTICES AND
RECORD KEEPING, RFC2026)."
I don't feel that strongly one way or another which mailing lists are
mandated
as part of the process, but I felt it was important to clarify that the
W3C URI IG
_is_ fairly carefully chartered to provide this service, if the IETF
wants it to.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 4 March 2005 12:56:28 UTC