At 9:26 AM -0700 4/5/05, Tim Bray wrote:
Section 7.1: what process is the IESG supposed to use to review registration requests? Please see section 2 of RFC 2434/BCP 26 for mechanisms that might be used and please specify one in the document.
Paul, care to take the lead on this? -Tim
Nope. Scott: can you be more specific about your question? Section 7.1 seems pretty clear to me, but I'm possibly missing something.
At 1:04 PM -0400 4/5/05, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
There needs to be both text explaining why IETF practice isn't being used
Good.
and there needs to be an identified URI.
Bad.
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.
Just to be clear: you are asking us to get the final URI for the namespace *before* the IESG has approved of the document. That means that it is really, really likely that some implementers will write and deploy code based on the draft that is going to the IESG, not waiting to see if the IESG demands changes for the wire protocol or the MUSTs and SHOULDs.
Do you really want that (he asks pejoratively)?
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
