Re: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-merrick-jms-uri-10

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 19 December 2010 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5393A67A1 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:56:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ifatEbR045t for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41733A679C for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.239.131]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBJ6vwho006335; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:58:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1292741887; bh=zF/WsRWgbDQ+78lQejN+CpzHeM4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=cGUIIXPbMnVPd1m1S4zU8EGJCEqCSk3agyfKqDvyELAuh1Cgxi09eCgGPsIOp+hW1 RS9qMJSGGXwn+BN8CuH4G1/OZVSEVGqfDZAdOq5Nmc6Eyi1jDNRGLOU7XujewhqvZa 4V9tYHzlulOZpInLzB0H7TpOVD9Sr5vMD3nk3PzQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20101218221926.0a678da0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:57:44 -0800
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D04FAEE1E17@nambxv01a.corp. adobe.com>
References: <AANLkTimCZHmzaC+t2hGDkhcTmQgOe6k1aeG1q+FKVOAG@mail.gmail.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D04FAEE1E17@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-merrick-jms-uri-10
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:56:20 -0000

Hi Larry,

[I trimmed the Cc down to the Apps-discuss mailing list as the 
discussion is about process]

At 09:47 17-12-10, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I'm wondering if the process for review of registration material
>should include a provision for incorporation of reviewer comments
>(or a pointer to them) in the registry itself.

A registration request is generally reviewed on a mailing list 
dedicated for that purpose.  There is, for example, a Uri-review 
mailing list where URI schemes are discussed.   If the process for 
review requires the inclusion of material with reviewer comments, it 
is like writing an Internet-Draft to summarize the discussion.  This 
is akin to the Document Shepherding Process.  That output of that 
process rarely provides a summary of the views.

The registry documents the decision and not the pros and cons of the 
registration proposal.  That's its purpose.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy