At 12:47 12/03/2001 -0800, James P. Salsman wrote:
> > perhaps a more useful mode of discussion would be to determine what
> criteria
> > should be used for the rfc publication process and whether incremental
> > improvements are possible, independent of encoding changes.
>
>When someone submits a new Content-disposition value or parameter
>registration -- http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2183.html --
>the Area Directors and IESG would be best served to refrain from deferring
>the registration decision to secretive industry consortia who have only to
>do with one of the many uses of the header.
>
>Does anyone disagree? If so, why?
>
>If not, I will re-submit the "device" parameter registration.
The registration procedure you refer to starts out
>10. Registration of New Content-Disposition Values and Parameters
>
> New Content-Disposition values (besides "inline" and "attachment")
> may be defined only by Internet
> standards-track documents, or in Experimental documents approved by
> the Internet Engineering Steering
> Group.
Could you also mention the I-D name of the draft that you think should be
published as an Experimental or Standards-track RFC along with this?
The reason for the relatively high bar on this one is that
(from what I remember, vaguely, from last time, there were people who did
not like your approach, but I don't even remember the I-D name....)
Note that like all IESG decisions, the appeals process can be used if you
think that an IESG decision is wrongly done; see RFC 2026.
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
