At 12:47 12/03/2001 -0800, James P. Salsman wrote:
> perhaps a more useful mode of discussion would be to determine what
criteria
> should be used for the rfc publication process and whether incremental
> improvements are possible, independent of encoding changes.
When someone submits a new Content-disposition value or parameter
registration -- http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2183.html --
the Area Directors and IESG would be best served to refrain from deferring
the registration decision to secretive industry consortia who have only to
do with one of the many uses of the header.
Does anyone disagree? If so, why?
If not, I will re-submit the "device" parameter registration.
The registration procedure you refer to starts out
10. Registration of New Content-Disposition Values and Parameters
New Content-Disposition values (besides "inline" and "attachment")
may be defined only by Internet
standards-track documents, or in Experimental documents approved by
the Internet Engineering Steering
Group.
Could you also mention the I-D name of the draft that you think should be
published as an Experimental or Standards-track RFC along with this?
The reason for the relatively high bar on this one is that
(from what I remember, vaguely, from last time, there were people who did
not like your approach, but I don't even remember the I-D name....)
Note that like all IESG decisions, the appeals process can be used if you
think that an IESG decision is wrongly done; see RFC 2026.
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald(_at_)Alvestrand(_dot_)no