ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TEXT version of Draft RFC

1991-04-24 12:27:50
Excerpts from mail: 24-Apr-91 Re: TEXT version of Draft RFC Einar
Stefferud(_at_)ics(_dot_)uci(_dot_) (1025)

Should we be putting our initial set into an appendix, instead of into
the main text of RFC-XXXX?  Don't we need to cleanly separate the
timeless "types" from their "instances" in the RFC?

I had thought about this.  I didn't come up with a strong feeling one
way or the other.

Have we really specified (and is the IANA creating) a new register of
context types, with all the registration and publication rules that
have to go with it.  I recall some handwaving language in the RFC that
says that it is Somebody Else's Problem (SEP Technology Strikes
Again), but has "somebody else" picked up the implied responsibility?

What has to be done, if anything to make it happen?  I believe in
magic, but ...\Stef

The current draft simply reproduces the language from RFC 1049, which
gives someone to contact (Joyce Reynolds) to register content-types.  I
assumed that all of this was set up carefully for RFC 1049.  Perhaps
someone more knowledgable can comment?  Perhaps Craig, who is one of the
1049 authors?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>