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

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 19 December 2010 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5393A67A1 for <>; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:56:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.452
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ifatEbR045t for <>; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41733A679C for <>; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (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;; 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: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:57:44 -0800
To: Larry Masinter <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D04FAEE1E17@nambxv01a.corp.>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-merrick-jms-uri-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.

S. Moonesamy