Does anybody have feedback on the suggestions/questions below?
If I don't get any feedback on the ABNF or validity discussions, I'll
proceed as outlined. I think there needs to be *some* feedback
regarding the link relation registry; I'm proposing substantial changes
there (my preferred
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Hmm. As far as I can tell, the *only* place where we actually define a
rule is 4.2.9.2, and that's just combining two rules by reference. I
wonder if we can save complexity here (and remove one normative
reference) by just doing this in prose; the text is currently:
[[[
Oops; I meant draft-freed-media-type-reg.
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Section 4: RFC 2045 is referenced. 2045 is on its way to being
obsoleted by
draft-freed-mime-p4 (in the RFC Editor queue) and
draft-freed-media-type-reg
(in last call). Can the more recent documents
Comments and Questions:
draft-ietf-atompub-format-07
Done;
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2005-April/
000676.html
Just curious; when/how does the ietf-types list switch over to
@iana.org (as per draft-freed-media-type-reg)?
On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Scott
On Apr 5, 2005, at 9:26 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
Section 1.2: please reference draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-00.txt
instead
of RFC 2234 and confirm that everything that was valid before is still
valid. The IESG approved this document as a Draft Standard last week.
Rob/Mark?
Hmm. As far as I can tell,
Done;
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2005-April/
000676.html
Just curious; when/how does the ietf-types list switch over to
@iana.org (as per draft-freed-media-type-reg)?
On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
The MIME media type registration template
Your working group chairs have asked me to shepherd
draft-ietf-atompub-format-07 through IETF last call. As part of that
process, I have an obligation to review the document myself. I've completed
my review and I'd like to share my comments and a few questions with the
group.
A new version of
software
package.
I saw your follow-up; thanks.
-Scott-
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sayre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:05 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: RNG and examples (was: AD Review Comments and
Questions: draft-ietf
-Original Message-
From: Tim Bray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:26 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: Re: AD Review Comments and Questions:
draft-ietf-atompub-format-07
On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote
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:
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 2:07 PM
To: Tim Bray; Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: Re: AD Review Comments and Questions:
draft-ietf-atompub-format-07
At 9:26 AM -0700 4/5/05, Tim Bray wrote
At 2:25 PM -0400 4/5/05, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
As described in 2434, IESG Approval, though the IESG has discretion to
request documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis.
Right.
I'd really like to see some guidance in the document to describe what the
IESG should look for.
Robert Sayre wrote:
Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
Thanks, but you didn't answer all of my question. Has someone (you?)
confirmed that the schema and examples are consistent?
OK, I'm probably not the best person to check the examples. Volunteers?
Me. Will be back to you in 24h.
cheers
Bill
13 matches
Mail list logo
