Re: [cmis] Feb 9 agenda

[Al Brown <albertcbrown@us.ibm.com>]

David,

Which issue numbers would you like to postpone? I am favor of voting on those items when you are available as long as it is soon.

The issue submitter is responsible for getting it discussed which happened at the f2f. The diffs are premature since there is not an oasis version to diff against yet.

-Al

Al Brown
Emerging Standards and Industry Frameworks
Office 714 327 3453
Mobile 714 263 6441
Email albertcbrown@us.ibm.com
CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The contents of this message, including any attachments, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the message was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender. Please also permanently delete all copies of the original message and any attached documentation.

David Nuescheler ---02/06/2009 09:15:56 AM---hi all,

From:	David Nuescheler <david@day.com>
To:	Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Cc:	Choy_David@emc.com, cmis@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	02/06/2009 09:15 AM
Subject:	Re: [cmis] Feb 9 agenda

---

hi all,

my personal take on this is that we should try to follow the process illustrated
by julian and check if we can get the IESG approval and if not resort to the
full IRI's for the time being.

regards,
david

> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>



-- 
Visit: http://dev.day.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php