XRD 1.0 next steps

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>]

Public review ends next week and assuming no last minute surprise, the comments received will not require any normative language change. I am following up with the IESG to find out where the Link draft stands but from the comments, the focus is on technical registry details, not the header or link framework semantics (which is what we referenced).

I will make the change to the file extension registration.

Will - can you fix the example per James' note?

Drummond - can you find out what's OASIS policy with regard to a normative dependency on a-not-yet-published RFC? Is IESG approval enough (IETF rules allow referencing an IESG approved draft before RFC publication)? And based on that answer, when can we submit this for a standard vote?

EHL