At 6:07 PM +0100 1/7/05, Tom Petch wrote:
Looking at the recent announcements of I-Ds, I think we will get a
substantial number of URI/URL related drafts in the coming months which
will also test this procedure. Their revision numbers are clocking up
so they are being discussed but not AFAICS on any IETF-related list. And
these seem to be standards track.
URI-related drafts are discussed on the uri@xxxxxx list. This was
the list of the IETF URI working group, when it was active, and it is
still used by the URI community to discuss URI schemes and updates
to the URI standards. With the publication of the core URI spec
as a standard (RFC 2396bis), there are several efforts under way to
clean up the related standards. One of those efforts is to move
the existing scheme definitions in RFC 1738 into separate documents,
so that RFC 1738 can be declared obsolete. A second effort is
to move the registration procedures for URI schemes onto a
new basis, since the existing basis has resulted in organizations
minting unregistered schemes. Lastly, there is the usual traffic
of documents for new schemes, like the SNMP URI scheme
recently discussed; these last may not be individual submissions,
since the working group chartered for the protocol tends to
develop the documents for its URI scheme. The URI mailing
list acts there only as a useful source of reviewers.
As much as we might like the handy "default yes"/"default no"
terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the
standards track have varying levels of support and interest
when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Defaulting all
proposals to "no" that have no working group behind them
collapses that too far, in my personal opinion.
The important point to me is that the Last Call gives an opportunity
for the IETF community as a whole to give a cross-area review of a
proposal. Feedback at this stage is crucial to determining whether
a proposal will have positive, negative, or no effect on the parts
of the Internet infrastructure which are not the core competence
of the draft's authors. Working groups tend to have broader sets
of competence than individual authors or design teams, but it is
this same benefit that we seek with each Last Call.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf