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

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* SM wrote:
>At 14:49 27-06-2012, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>>Moving it to a separate document should not be necessary.  We can 
>>publish the WF RFC with the "acct" URI scheme and work to get URI 
>>reviewer approval in parallel.  Is URI reviewer approval required 
>>first?  I don't think so.  Graham suggested that having it agreed in 
>>a standards-track RFC carries a lot of weight.
>
>If the draft is on-track as an IETF RFC, the URI review should not be 
>a problem.  Graham already suggested the easy path.  If you completed 
>the steps to request a URI review, it's not worth worrying about that 
>if the draft is making progress.

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-
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
review has been posted to the uri-review list, so if there is anything
else Paul has to initiate, could you spell that out?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/