draft-freed-mime-p4-04 is apparently superseded by..
duerst at w3.org
Wed Sep 1 03:01:52 CEST 2004
Many thanks for your clarifications.
Is there anything we can do to move draft-freed-media-type-reg-01.txt forward?
You say that it will got to last call 'once it has been determined that
the various issues have been dealt with in a satisfactory way'. Who will
make this determination, and when?
Also, you refer to some concerns regarding text/red and related
types. Can you provide pointers to these discussions? (You refer
to the change log in draft-freed-media-type-reg-01.txt, and I
have looked though it, but it is not clear which changes are
related to the text/red concerns, and which changes are separate.)
At 17:13 04/08/28 -0700, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:
> > I didn't see a LAST CALL or a Protocol Action
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/index.html
>Which document are you referring to? If you're talking about
>draft-freed-mime-p4-03.txt, it was last called on 29-Sep-2003. The
>of that last call was posted to the IETF list in the usual way. The document
>was finally approved by the IESG on 28-Jan-2004; again with the usual
>announcement sent to the IETF list.
>However, various concerns relating to the registration of the text/red and
>related media types as part of the AVT WG activities caused the IESG to
>withdraw the document from the RFC Editor queue so additional changes to the
>media type registration procedures section could be made. Additionally, I
>suggested, and the IESG agreed, that it would be best to tease the media types
>stuff out of the MIME document set at this point since media types are used in
>lots of places besides MIME.
>Accordingly, I have moved the specification of the media type
>registration procedures to another, separate document,
>draft-freed-media-type-reg-01.txt. (The additional changes that have been made
>in response to AVT needs are listed in the document's appendix.) I presume a
>new last call will be needed to advance this specification to BCP at some
>in the future once it has been determined that the various issues have been
>dealt with in a satisfactory way.
>In the meantime draft-freed-mime-p4-03.txt has gone back into the RFC Editor
>queue - an entirely reasonably thing to do IMO given that all the remaining
>stuff is unchanged from what was approved back in January.
>It is also my understanding that the IESG is currently following and will
>continue to follow the revised procedures for registrations in the standards
>tree that were specified in draft-freed-mime-p4-02.txt. The AVT issues and
>resulting changes are orthogonal IMO.
More information about the Ietf-types