Re: Mailing ilst for review (was [Uri-review] Re: FW: Last Call: 'Domain Name System UniformResource ...)



Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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"
>  --

Perhaps we should have bone through a more formal review of
that IG agenda between the initial proposal (when the IETF
identified participants), and the instantiation of the
IG some 2.5 to 3 YEARS later :-)

Because, at the time I recall reviewing the charter (some
3 years ago), that text described:

	. high level issues with URIs of mutual interest (as
	  opposed to specific schemes)

	. the fact that your list of URI schemes was somewhat
	  more complete (or differently complete) than the
	  list on IANA's pages.

In the intervening time, both issues have had progress (IANA's
list is getting better; as you know, the IETF APPs area has
been working on some of the registration issues and trying
to ensure that the relevant schemes appear in the IANA
registry, etc -- Larry's draft is one piece of that effort).

And, the interest group has gone from being something invitational
to being the list.

I'm fine with where things have landed -- I have NO issue
with being the W3C URI IG!  But, I do have an issue
with lining up our original discussion and claiming that
it matches where we wound up!

>>     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 and follow the 
> rules of IETF applicable to mailing list usage (section 8. NOTICES AND 

And some more, apparently -- the IETF does not require checking
for archivability as a requirement to post.

For example.


Received on Friday, 4 March 2005 21:10:37 UTC