Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-01.txt

Hello Ian --

Why is this discussion suddenly being broadcast to individual
addresses instead of the <[email protected]> mailing list, 
where it belongs?

I note that mail addressed to ietf-url <[email protected]> does not
seem to arrive at <[email protected]>.

Best...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 21 May 1998 14:36:26 -0700:
}
}Oh good, I thought I had zoned in LA or something (must be the smog). I
}thought it was really weird that the new draft didn't have NOREG. So I
}assume NOREG is going to be put back into the draft?
}
}		Yaron
}
}-----Original Message-----
}From: Ian King 
}Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:58 PM
}To: 'Leslie Daigle'
}Cc: Yaron Goland; '[email protected]'; Alec Dun (Exchange);
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa
}Dusseault (Exchange); [email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
}Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-01.txt 
}
}
}Thanks, Leslie,I may be confusing recollections of LA and Washington -- I
}appreciate the clarification.  
}
}-----Original Message-----
}From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:[email protected]]
}Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:53 PM
}To: Ian King
}Cc: Yaron Goland; '[email protected]'; Alec Dun (Exchange);
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa
}Dusseault (Exchange); [email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected];
}[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
}Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-01.txt 
}
}
}On Thu, 21 May 1998, Ian King wrote:
}> I seem to recall that there was considerable discussion about vnd, and the
}> consensus was that it was redundant or actually undesirable.  Does anyone
}> else want to speak up in favor of vnd?  
}
}I may have fallen off the thread somewhere, but I rather understood the
}opposite -- that vnd was agreed on as a necessary categorization.
}
}From the (unedited) minutes from the ietf.org proceedings for LA:
}
}"Create three classifications of scheme names:  Standard, vendor (start with
}
} (vnd."), and private (a.k.a. the NOREG scheme).  Mimic the MIME
}registration 
} procedures outlined in RFC 2048.
}
} Standard scheme names will require an RFC that documents them and change 
} control for the scheme belongs to the IESG.
}
} Vendor scheme names require a registration form to be completed but RFCs
}are 
} encouraged.  Change control of the scheme belongs to the vendor.
}
} Private scheme names do not even require registration."
}
}As I read it, vnd and NOREG are not the same thing.
}
}I think this was the breakdown that was agreed upon in LA, and it still
}seems
}like the most viable path.
}
}
}Leslie.
}
}
}----------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
}  "You can lead people to facts, but              Leslie Daigle
}       you cannot make them think."               
}                                                  Bunyip Information Systems
}                      -- ThinkingCat              (514) 875-8611
}                                                  [email protected]
}----------------------------------------------------------------------------