Re: [apps-discuss] Possible IESG statement on IESG processing of MIME type registrations from other SDOs

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>[Assuming the above also applies to W3C] I'm no longer working for W3C, 
>but if I still did, and in particular if I still was in charge of 
>coordinating these registration requests, I'd very clearly and 
>explicitly not be happy with this. In my view, one of the main points of 
>RFC 4288 was exactly to get away from the need to have things in two 
>places, and to get away from the need for people who never before and 
>never after wrote Internet Drafts to get familiar with all the details.
>
>If we think RFC 4288 has failed, we should fix it. (I for my part don't 
>think it has failed, at least not in this respect.)

I am not sure whether RFC 4288 has failed in this respect generally, but
it seems pretty clear that the W3C has been largely unable to follow the
much simpler process here. If you look at the not-very-well-maintained
index at http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html you have
entries there like "Check in November 2009" under "Plans". It's not a
total failure, but W3C staff obviously can't do so much as check, say, a
review request to ietf-types goes out along with a Last Call or that the
types have actually been registered when a document is to move to CR, PR
REC, "Second Edition" levels.

Putting this around, a bit of a summary of the problems the IESG has en-
countered with registration requests from other standards organizations
that don't come as I-Ds would help in making suggestions.
-- 
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/