It might help if the people interested in this question would read the RFC
that describes the registration process:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2048.txt

2048 will soon be obsoleted by two other documents:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-06.txt
(which is in the RFC Editor queue)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-media-type-reg-02.txt
(which is in last call)

Short synopsis:
- Community review on the ietf-types list is a "good idea".  I require it
for types in the standards tree.

- The details have to be documented in either an I-D or some other document
produced by a "standards body".  What defines a "standards body" is open to
interpretation by the IESG.

- The rules are less stringent for types in the non-standards trees.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:47 AM
> To: Tim Bray
> Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Atomlist
> Subject: Re: application/rss+xml
> 
> 
> 
> I tried; the official response [1] was that the IESG wanted 
> to see an  
> stable and available spec -- by their standards -- for RSS before  
> putting it in the standards tree. Just doing a registration 
> doesn't cut  
> it.
> 
> I worked on an RSS 2.0 I-D [2] for a while and then stopped 
> when I got  
> nervous about change control and copyright issues. Given that 
> RSS 2.0  
> is now hosted at Harvard, it may be that the IESG will 
> consider that a  
> stable enough ref; if not, I'm not nearly as nervous now that it's  
> under a CC license, and I think I could take a crack at the I-D  
> again...
> 
> I'll do a bit of asking around...
> 
> 1.  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
> command=view_id&dTag=7792&rfc_flag=0
> 2. http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-rss2-00.txt
> 
> 
> On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:05 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Mar 29, 2005, at 8:55 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> >
> >> IESG approval of an Internet-Draft with a media type registration  
> >> would
> >> register the type, yes. Whether we should try to register 
> application/
> >> rss+xml is a different question though.
> >
> > D'oh, Randy wanted rss+xml, not atom+xml.  Missed the point. -Tim
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

Reply via email to