[apps-discuss] procedural question

Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> Thu, 02 May 2013 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <dret@berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF4521F8E06 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2013 13:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MHpZlH9lh6d4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2013 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cm05fe.IST.Berkeley.EDU (cm05fe.IST.Berkeley.EDU [169.229.218.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D4D221F8CE2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2013 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 24-119-110-161.cpe.cableone.net ([24.119.110.161] helo=dretair.local) by cm05fe.ist.berkeley.edu with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (auth plain:dret@berkeley.edu) (envelope-from <dret@berkeley.edu>) id 1UY0TG-0005WT-Gw for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 13:51:19 -0700
Message-ID: <5182D1C4.3040908@berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 13:51:16 -0700
From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [apps-discuss] procedural question
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 20:51:24 -0000

hello.

i have a question about procedural issues: i have three drafts that i 
would like to enter into a formal review process. since these drafts are 
individual submissions, the question (that i have faced before) always 
is how to make the transition from individually posting and discussing 
the drafts, to this more formal process. the current drafts i have been 
working on (and which i believe are ready to enter the formal path to 
RFCness) are:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-04
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-02
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sinnema-xacml-media-type-02

with my previous drafts i always was lucky to have somebody shepherding 
them, but it was always a lucky coincidence to find somebody willing to 
do it. the question i have is how to approach this in a way so that i 
can make this transition from individual drafts to the formal process 
more predictable. are there any recommendations or guidance i could turn 
to? is there a different forum i should ask for this?

thanks a lot for your help and kind regards,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |