- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:39:04 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, xml-encryption@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
On Friday 24 May 2002 12:21, Tim Bray wrote: > > Also, Ian, in [3] what does it mean that the registration should be > > part of the REC? That I should have an appendix in the spec with a copy > > of my request? (seems odd...) > > I think that's the idea. Why odd? -Tim Not odd, but .... Is the expectation that there will also be an orthogonal ietf-draft -> RFC or registration request document? If so, wouldn't a reference to it be sufficient? (If we're using the registration process, should the TR be dependent on that process: can't leave CR until the registration is issued? Or can the WG commit to the registration but the documents don't need to be inter-dependent? Or will a section within a W3C specification be an adequate referent for the IANA registry? -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 14:39:34 UTC