> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Bray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:26 PM > To: Scott Hollenbeck > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: AD Review Comments and Questions: > draft-ietf-atompub-format-07 > > > On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
[snip] > > Sections 1.1, 1.2: RFC 3688/BCP 81 describes IETF practice > for naming > > XML > > namespaces. Why are namespace URIs (such as http://purl.org) that > > don't > > conform to this practice being used? > > Our plan, as we discussed with you & Ted. last year, is to use a W3C > namespace. The current value is a placeholder. Should we > note this in > -08? There needs to be both text explaining why IETF practice isn't being used and there needs to be an identified URI. We don't need the URI *right now*, but I want it in the document BEFORE I bring the document to the IESG for review. Explanatory text will suffice for last call purposes. [snip] > > The MIME media type registration template included in > section 7 MUST be > > submitted to the ietf-types list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for > > review. A > > two-week review period is standard for requests to register > new types > > in the > > standards tree. Please see the list archives [1] for > samples if help > > is > > needed in crafting a review request and please send the > request ASAP. > > Scott, what's the scheduling on that? Do we launch that right now, > independent of the rest of the document review process? Start it now. It can run concurrent with or before the last call. If you wait until after the last call starts it becomes the gating factor to having the document ready for IESG review. -Scott-
