[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments regarding draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt



This draft is the product of a W3C Working Group, and several people have been involved; I was made responsible for getting the draft published in May of this year, shortly after I re-joined the WG following a lengthy hiatus.

As you do, I find it curious that there has been previous co-ordination with the W3C but no follow-through on this side; I'll ask my Chair (David Fallside) to look into the matter.

The conclusions that you drew were reasonable based on your knowledge of the situation, but I maintain that it does not follow that the IESG was thereby released from the need to respond to the documents' authors formally.

Regards,


On Nov 3, 2003, at 11:13 AM, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:


Ned,

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who participates in W3C-IETF
co-ordination work; I am not, and therefore can't answer these
questions.

If you are not at least informed by this work then I am at a total loss as to
how you ever got the idea an I-D registering a media type but containing no
registration template would ever be acceptable. As I have explained repeatedly,
the only this idea ever came up was in the context of W3C-IETF coordination
work. The current media type registration rules are quite clear in this regard
as to the need for a registration template.


Similarly, if this work is totally independent of the W3C-IETF coordination
activities then I find it quite curious that this document has been mentioned
in that context not once but several times.


And finally, it is even more curious that the original versions of this
document contained a registration template that was removed in the 14-Apr-2003
update, shortly after the W3C-IETF coordination call of 13-Mar-2003 where this
idea emerged.


Given all this if you still think it was unreasonable for me to reach
the conclusion I did, I'm sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Ned