postscript: in preparing the record, Connolly noticed that Asking IANA to maintain tidy URIs was not carried forward from 13 March.
ACTION Ned Freed: investigate private archiving for IETF hosted list. from 13 March
Daigle reported that the IETF now has facilities for list archives of various sorts.
ACTION Hardie: set up an http archive of firstname.lastname@example.org readable by the subscribers
Ned Freed: try to last call the document today and champion this issue at he upcoming Sunday IESG meeting. from 13 March
Freed reported via email...
I received lots of feedback on draft-freed-mime-p4-01.txt at the last IETF, so much that it wasn't practical to proceed with a last call at that time. I subsequently worked my way through the various comments and released a new (-01) version that hopefully addresses all the issues.
IETF policy is that ADs don't handle their own documents. As such, I asked Ted Hardie to review and last call the document.
I therefore consider this action item done, with the ball now in Ted's court.
Hardy confirmed that he's now the shepherding Area Director, and noted that the status is "Publication Requested", and that it was headed for Best Current Practice (BCP) status, at which point it would be policy.
The 6 June draft is available.
Connolly asked Reagle what needed to happen before it was useful for his work on XENC. Reagle said he only needed for it to be effective policy; "BCP" versus standards-track was not critical for his use.
Connolly asked Hardie to estimate when it would go to last call. Hardie agreed to provide an estimate by email, noting that it would most likely be after the July IETF meeting in Vienna. ACTION Hardie: estimate last call on draft-freed-mime-p4-*.
Hardie noted that since it's an individual submission, last call would be 4 weeks, rather than 2 weeks as for working group documents.
Ned Freed: refresh the status of the SMIL solicitation on the IESG agenda. from 13 March
Hardie observed some progress on the status of the smil draft; records seem to indicate that another draft was due from the author (Hoschka) though noone present knew what needed to be fixed. ACTION Hardie: enquire with IESG members such as Harald about what's expected in a new smil draft, and whether the author has been notified.
Connolly noted, with appreciation, that the IETF datatracker now uses GET for its searches, so the results can, for example, be linked from this record.
Alison Mankin: bring up this issue to the IESG for confirmation and report back to email@example.com, with possibility of asking Joseph Reagle to reflect this resolution in W3C Guidebook. from 13 March
Daigle reported that discussion in the IESG raised some issues, including how the IETF would recongnie what was a W3C draft.
Connolly suggested that the idea was more trouble than it was worth. The matter was dropped.
ACTION Martin Dürst: review the draft-iap-char-rep, and then coordinate with Ted Hardie and Leslie Daigle on next steps. from 13 March
Daigle reported on discussion beween Hardie, Dürst and herself in March. ACTION Daigle: update this forum on next steps
Hardie reported on movement away from the "one-size-fits-all" style for IETF WGs. For new URI schemes, trying to clear the process and backlog for new URI schemes. A problem has been that even thought there is a URI review forum, the process as it stands is that it comes in to the RDC editor as an individual submission, the editor turns it over to an IESG stuckee, who then replies with the suggested disposition. (publish, publish with note prepended, etc...). Often the stuckee turns to the URI review group.
Problems have been: useful responses from URI review group have met with mixed responses from the original authors. The idea of a long-lived mainainance team might work better. The URI maintenance team would have responsibility to reach closure; It would have the same appeal systems as a WG.
Connolly asked what motivates/pays the uri review team? Hardie responded that it fits into the process better as a WG - and this might justify people's time better.
Connolly asked about candidates for chair. Hardie suggested perhaps Daigle, but Daigle was reluctant.
Hardie noted the coordination challenges in this work; e.g. a "dns" URI scheme; it has undergone 5 draft revisions during review in uri-review and on the DNS extensions list (namedroppers).
Connolly noted that in addition to those challenges, uri scheme designers are not very motivated to write Internet Draft specifications of their schemes in the first place; the schemes don't rely on the registry for operation, except in the case of a collision, which seems rare in practice. Connolly noted another "dns:" scheme in the implementation of the rebol programming language. Perhaps making an example of this collision would motivate scheme designers to register their schemes.
Hardie noted with regret lack of progress on the vnd- branch of the URI tree. Ian King was the original author, but it got lost within the IESG.
Hardie asked for confirmation that a URI scheme maintenance team wouldn't "tread on W3C's toes". Connolly and Berners-Lee confirmed; Berners-Lee explored the idea of an explicit liaison with the W3C TAG; Connolly suggested that as long as the idea was discussed in the W3C URI Coordination Group, the right connections would be established as a matter of course. ACTION Mealling: raise the "uri maintenance team" idea in the W3C URI CG.
Hardie noted in passing the discussions in the problem-statement forum, but suggested that shouldn't prevent this maintenance team from going forward. Others on the call expressed curiosity, but there wasn't time to explore the matter further.
RESOLVED to meet next Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 1:00:00 PM Boston time (1700Z) for up to 90 minutes. Daigle to prepare an agenda. Connolly to arrange teleconference and IRC facilities.
In closing, Connolly re-iterated the process for review of records: Connolly sends a draft; after 7 day review, it goes public [to firstname.lastname@example.org]