Re: [cmis] Feb 9 agenda

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>]

Choy_David@emc.com wrote:
 > > ...
 > > * The TC resolved all the issues in JIRA (up to CMIS-39), except
 > > CMIS-16.  We shall vote on these resolutions at the next meeting.
 > > ...

looking at the meeting minutes for CMIS-26...:

"26    Short names for link types    We should make our link type names
generic (i.e. remove the CMIS- prefix) need to register our CMIS link
types with IANA    Al Brown"

Again, I'd ask people to read and comment on what I wrote here on
January 30:

 > > Following up  on <http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CMIS-26>:
 > >
 > > The Atom feed format (RFC 4287) allows two types of relations:
 > >
 > > 1) short names, with the registry maintained by IANA, requiring 
IESG approval, or
 > >
 > > 2) full IRIs
 > >
 > > The first choice IMHO should only be used for link relations of 
general use (I can't point to spec language requiring this but I believe 
that's what the intention is).
 > >
 > > Furthermore note that IESG approval is required (so simply filling 
out a form and sending it to iana.org may not be sufficient). So if the 
TC really wants to pursue option 1), the discussion with IANA should 
start early, in order to avoid a nasty surprise later on.
 > >
 > > That being said, I do not understand why option 2) is not being 
considered.

In particular, it is NOT a simple IANA registration; the IESG will have
to review and approve the registration first. Do not rely on it being a
simple administrative step.

Best regards, Julian (with my IETF liaison hat on)


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782