[apps-discuss] procedural question

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

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
Precedence: list

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 |

[apps-discuss] procedural question Erik Wilde
Re: [apps-discuss] procedural question Murray S. Kucherawy