RE: Request for approval/registration of application/xenc+xml

Martin,

Please send a new review request to the ietf-types list.  I don't care if
you call if a review request or a request for comments, but I want to be
sure that there is a clear record of the request being made.  Since
draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype is no longer being considered I'd like this new
request to stand on it's own.  Please be sure to include links to the
relevent spec(s).

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:16 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck
> Cc: jose.kahan@w3.org; w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org; 'Dan 
> Connolly'; iesg@ietf.org; xml-encryption@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Request for approval/registration of application/xenc+xml
> 
> 
> Hello Scott,
> 
> Sorry for the delay with this email. I had to do some serious
> archeology for my answer.
> 
> At 23:11 05/03/15, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>  >Martin,
>  >
>  >I can't find any record of a media types review request in 
> the ietf-types
>  >archive.  Can you point me to the request?  I do see 
> mention of the type
>  >related to an old I-D named draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype, 
> but that's not the
>  >same thing as a specific request for review.
> 
> First, just a question of terminology:
> In our side of the process, at
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#Planned,
> it just says "Send an email to the mailing
> list ietf-types@iana.org asking for comments on the Media Type section
> of your specification". Is that enough, or should we use the term
> "request for review" more explicitly there?
> 
> Second, my understanding is that the current version of our side
> of this process at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmlenc-core-20021210/#sec-MediaType
> is indeed based on the earlier draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype, and
> incorporates the comment received on ietf-types. There was indeed
> an I-D, but it was just a very short one, essentially just containing
> a reference to the registration information already in the spec
> itself. See for example
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00821.html
> For whatever it's worth, strangely enough this email is not 
> archived at
> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2002-August/
> author.html.
> I remember asking Harald about this, he suspected it might have to
> do with only mails from subscribers in the list
> being archived. (see separately forwarded mail)
> 
> So my understanding is that as far as I was able to reconstruct
> what happened, this Media Type proposal was indeed sufficiently
> reviewed on ietf-types@iana.org. Please tell us if you think
> otherwise, and what the next steps should be in this case.
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> 
>  >-Scott-
>  >
>  >> -----Original Message-----
>  >> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
>  >> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:39 AM
>  >> To: Scott Hollenbeck
>  >> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; xml-encryption@w3.org; jose.kahan@w3.org;
>  >> Dan Connolly; w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org
>  >> Subject: Request for approval/registration of application/xenc+xml
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Hello Scott,
>  >>
>  >> This is a request from W3C, for review and approval by the IESG
>  >> and subsequent registration by IANA of the MIME media type
>  >> application/xenc+xml.
>  >>
>  >> The registration template for this media type can be found in
>  >> the XML Encryption Syntax and Processing specification, which
>  >> is a W3C Recommendation, in Section 8:
>  >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-core/#sec-MediaType. This is a pointer
>  >> to the last version of this specification.
>  >> A pointer to the current version is
>  >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmlenc-core-20021210/#sec-MediaType.
>  >>
>  >> On our side, this registration is following the process 
> outlined at
>  >> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#Planned, but
>  >> due to some timing issues, the specification in question 
> is already
>  >> at the Recommedation stage. If we have to make 
> corrections, we plan
>  >> to do so through errata.
>  >>
>  >> The registration proposal has been discussed on the ietf-types
>  >> list, and the registration information has been improved based
>  >> on this input.
>  >>
>  >> When the registration is approved, or for questions, please make
>  >> sure that you copy Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org> and Dan Connolly
>  >> <connolly@w3.org>.
>  >>
>  >> Regards,    Martin.
>  >>
>  >> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 13:01:14 UTC