- From: Scott Hollenbeck <sah@428cobrajet.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 06:51:59 -0500 (EST)
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <gk@ninebynine.org>, "'Ted Hardie'" <hardie@qualcomm.com>
- Cc: "'RDF core WG'" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "'aaron Swartz'" <me@aaronsw.com>, <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Graham, > Can you please indicate how we should proceed? I'll shepherd this. Since I'm not all that familiar with this history of the document, I'd prefer to use the procedures described in draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt. That document is sitting in the RFC Editor's queue in anticipation of obsoleting RFC 2048. I don't think that means anything specific to this document would change other than the reference to 2048 (Ned -- would you agree?). There is one other thing that I found confusing. The registration template includes this text: Optional parameters: charset Same as charset parameter of application/xml. Encoding considerations: Same as charset parameter of application/xml. Yet there is no mention of a reference to RFC 3023, the specification that includes the registration template for application/xml. There should probably be one. Anyway, we can treat this document as an individual submission to the IESG for publication as an Informational document as you requested. That means I'll adopt it, request an IETF-wide last call (consider my comments above last call comments), and we'll follow the usual IESG review and approval procedures from there. -Scott-
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 16:15:16 UTC