[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments regarding draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt
On Oct 28, 2003, at 10:59 AM, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
>> Also, some indication of how one determines
>> what are "recognized standards bod[ies]" would be helpful to those
>> unfamiliar with the IETF.
>
> It is up to the IESG to make these determinations. And given that the
> set
> of determinations the IESG has made is currently empty, trying to
> write down a set of rules for this is premature at this point.
>
> After there's some experience with the new procedure it probably makes
> sense to write something down about this, either in a revision to this
> document or in a separate document (which could be an IESG statement
> and not an RFC).
Perhaps a note could be added to indicate that the IESG should be
contacted to determine what qualifies as recognised, and that the set
of recognised standards organisations will be collected in a note / web
page, etc.
I think such a note would be premature at this point.
>> Additionally, some indication of the expected processing time (or,
>> ideally, service guarantees) would help other standards organisations
>> in planning (especially if the media type registration is required
>> before a document can be considered final; this might lead to an
>> unfortunate catch-22 situation).
>
> I'm sorry, but I regard such indications as a complete waste of time
> in the
> best case and actively harmful in the worst case. I'd basically be
> pulling a
> number out of the air. It may be right or it may be wrong. And if it
> is wrong,
> there's not much that can be done about it.
>
> I will also point out that past experience with writing down this
> sort of thing for other registration processes has not been good.
Understood. It would suffice if the IESG clearly communicated the
process for registration (as this draft works towards), as well as the
status of registrations in process (see below).
Specifics of IESG administrative process are not something that's
usually documented in an RFC.
>> The resolution of the issues above, as applied to
>> draft-freed-mime-p4-04, would have greatly helped XMLP in its
>> registration of "application/soap+xml" (and I hope that it will assist
>> us in our future registration(s)).
>
> None of the above issues had anything to do with delays in
> registration of
> application/soap+xml. This particular registration has been delayed
> because the
> document that specified it, draft-baker-soap-media-reg-03.txt, was
> written to
> conform to a tentative registration scheme proposed on a w3c telechat
> that was
> subsequently flatly rejected by the IESG.
When and to whom was this rejection made?
Every time anyone asked about it. It's been mentioned on W3C concalls,
for example.
> As I have explained repeatedly to the various people who asked about
> this, the
> minute the IESG rejected this approach this draft became a nonstarter.
> At that
> point there were two paths forward: (1) Wait for the rules to change
> and for
> the draft to become superfluous or (2) Rewrite the draft to follow the
> old
> rules and include a registration form. The fact that no new draft ever
> appeared was an implicit acknowledgment that the first course of
> action was the one
> being followed.
No new draft appeared because we were waiting for a response from the
IESG, not because a choice had been made.
And a response was given, as I have indicated above.
For whatever reason the document wasn't even added to the datatracker until
mid-September. I was out on sick leave at the time.
> You will also find notes to this effect in the public datatracker made
> some
> time back. I do note that the document wasn't marked "revised ID
> needed, which
> it should have been, so I just corrected that.
The only relevant information I see in the datatracker before today is
a note from Harold:
> This registration doesn't contain the registration forms, and the
> references to the specs (which are supposed to contain the forms) are
> to "work in progress".
However, this is just a declaration of facts, not a change in status of
the registration.
Oh please. It was clear from this note that there was a problem and it
was clear what the problem was.
Also, is the datatracker now the primary means of communication from
the IESG to draft authors? I haven't yet received any e-mail beyond the
initial notice of its receipt and a notice that it was temporarily
assigned to Harold, both on 11 September 2003.
The datatracker has been the primary vehicle for coordinating document actions
between the relevant parties for a while now.
Ned