Re: draft-freed-mime-p4-00.txt

On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 8:42:20 PM, ned+xml-mime wrote:

> Joseph Reagle wrote:
>> Please note that that document provides guidance for registration in the
>> present (interim) context of RFC2048 -- not necessarily the policy when
>> draft-freed-mime-p4-00.txt would be operational. For instance, it's not
>> clear to me that we would still have to generate even "stub" ietf-drafts
>> once it is operational. I nope that sending emails to the various lists
>> with a reference to the W3C document will be sufficient.

nxmmc> Actually, it should be quite clear that this will no longer be
nxmmc> necessary.

Re-reading this, I agree that the statement is not entirely clear and
could use some editing to convey what Ned confirms is the intended
meaning.

"The normal IETF processes should be followed for all registrations in
the standards tree, with the posting of an internet-draft being a
necessary first step. "

That could clearly be misinterpreted that an I-D is necesasary in all
cases, even though it says should not SHOUL

"Proposed registrations in the standards tree by other standards
bodies should be communicated to the IESG (at [email protected]). "

This is clear and leads me to believe that rewording the first
statement as

"The normal IETF processes should be followed for all registrations in
the IETF tree, with the posting of an internet-draft being a
necessary first step. "

would convey the intended meaning. It looks like a simple editorial
oversight in the generalization from 'IETF' to 'standards'.



-- 
 Chris                            mailto:[email protected]