Re: Rough sketch for an I-D (a successor of RFC 3023)

On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 17:33, MURATA Makoto wrote:
> > MM> I think that further discussion about the content of this I-D
> > MM> should be moved to the IETF-XML-MIME ML.
> > 
> > I prefer a list and a process that I understand well.
> I prefer an IETF ML an RFC at this stage of the game.  First, Ned's 
> update is not an RFC yet.  Second, if we are going to create an RFC 
> (as suggested in the TAG minutes), an IETF ML is a better place.  

I have no strong preference either way, but as far as I know,
the ietf-xml-mime mailing list isn't any more or less
endorsed by the IETF than any other public mailing list. is hosted by
the Internet Mail Consortium.

It's not the mailing list of an IETF working group,
nor is it endorsed by the IESG in any particular way,
as far as I know.

Regardless of official endorsement, the scope
of ietf-xml-mime seems to match this task quite
nicely. I guess I mildly prefer ietf-xml-mime to www-tag
for the bulk of the discussion. I'm sure Chris
and others will keep the TAG informed to the extent
we need to know stuff.

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 19:05:13 UTC