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

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

On 27/06/2012 07:06, SM wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> At 18:48 26-06-2012, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead!
>>
>> I think we should be careful about this. [e-mail] is for review of
>> URI/IRI schemes in general. This has a rather low barrier. The fact that it
>> gets approved there doesn't mean that it will pass through the IETF
>> standardization process. On the other hand, if the IETF standardizes it, it
>> has the possibility of overriding the decision on [e-mail] if that
>> should be necessary.
>> I'm just mentioning this here because we have been through this for another
>> URI scheme.
>
> I don't like the idea of mixing registration criteria and the standardization
> process. The authors of the other URI scheme were nice not to turn such a matter
> into an issue. This is the sort of issue which generate controversies. It will
> be detrimental to the IETF as people will walk away.

FWIW, as URI scheme reviewer, I would generally regard achieving standards-track 
status as demonstrating satisfaction of criteria for permanent registration. 
It's one of the strongest expressions of community consensus that I know of.

As far as I'm aware, the URI-review list doesn't make decisions, but it does 
provide a pool of comments that can help to indicate the level of consensus for 
a proposal, and highlight if there are any potential problems that need to be 
addressed.  Considering the role of the reviewer as more concierge than 
gatekeeper, this helps me to make hopefully constructive comments to a submitter.

#g
--