Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

SM <> Thu, 28 June 2012 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A585611E80CA for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.569
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id INTPG-Aa4qwA for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53A811E80F7 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5S1MVX2007295; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1340846556; bh=uPRZba5L/nElYcsY4GHZPPhf9b6Yn2+R4Bfsarr6hR4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=yULtGUxWcnuYkt3vAhh8/cfDKco5yTQHUZYOvnHCA3V78TLKfS9A4yEM9BOFLXnEa zr6890a1vq6J35Of1wUPc/nusBGtCP5P7chaazhq7rkezwUwd4urzUBPFtnKeSM5LL 6fKrupmw6iG1kKKZoa/lYC+bnJhGJ4a+K3EDTxZk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1340846556;; bh=uPRZba5L/nElYcsY4GHZPPhf9b6Yn2+R4Bfsarr6hR4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=JQ0DPcv+i926SitJrk096TU21F8WfwiMCe9vclamcKRnkly41GRMUOxL/x8ZdfBKt lK2b7wE21JT4/vigAehJk4GrG1Zxo0ADjXtQWmxCo+cMVxpPzutYeidtHRedsqAUWG U6/HgNTE6ZM9tmXSQBE5tQ2k4DcZ6989cvwrWVrM=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:22:13 -0700
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <5d8nu71haq67135l28h9nbotmm31v1avvb@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.d e>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:22:43 -0000

Hi Bjoern,
At 17:37 27-06-2012, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>I believe for proposals in Standards Track documents, as is the case
>here, the process consists of asking for review on the uri-review list
>and addressing any feedback there. Anything else, like asking the ex-

Graham commented on that in a message at

>pert reviewer whether they approve or coordinating IANA registration,
>would be done by the IESG or otherwise happen automatically after the
>IESG is asked to consider the document for publication. A request for

IANA asks some administrative questions about the registration 
request.  The document shepherd responds.  Sometimes the author or 
the WG Chair takes up the task.  This is usually during the IESG 
Evaluation stage.

>review has been posted to the uri-review list, so if there is anything
>else Paul has to initiate, could you spell that out?

He has done what BCP 35 requests the registrant to do.  As there 
weren't any comments, there's no problem to be solved.  BTW, you know 
about URI reviews better than me. :-)