IRC log of tagmem on 2003-12-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:03:26 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
16:06:36 [Ian]
Norm, status update on XML Core review of arch doc?
16:07:08 [Norm]
Uhm. None that I know of. It only went to last call on Tuesday! :-)
16:07:34 [Ian]
I mean just a confirmatino that they will review...
16:07:45 [Norm]
16:08:43 [Ian]
I assume that was PG.
16:09:02 [Norm]
16:09:08 [Ian]
16:09:24 [Norm]
Paul Grosso and I are co-chairs of Core, if that's what you're asking
16:09:27 [Ian]
16:09:28 [Ian]
16:09:43 [Ian]
I forgot the "co-" part
16:09:53 [Norm]
no worries
16:10:06 [Ian]
think we're ready to close on qnames finding today?
16:10:19 [Ian]
16:10:44 [Norm]
Sigh. No, probably not. I told David I'd tweak it again, but I haven't had time. I might this week, but not (likely) for today's call.
16:11:23 [Ian]
19:58:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:58:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
20:00:36 [Norm]
Zakim, this is tag
20:00:36 [Zakim]
ok, Norm
20:01:13 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
20:01:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Norm
20:01:42 [Zakim]
20:01:49 [Norm]
Zakim, ??P1 is Stuart
20:01:49 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
20:02:48 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:03:37 [Zakim]
20:04:00 [Zakim]
20:04:27 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
20:04:27 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:04:28 [Zakim]
20:04:52 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:04:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Norm, Stuart, [Microsoft], DanC, Ian
20:04:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Roy, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, DanC, Norm, Ian
20:05:34 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:05:47 [TBray]
Will call in in a second; finishing up a hot email
20:06:57 [Zakim]
20:07:18 [Zakim]
20:07:57 [Ian]
20:08:04 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:08:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Norm, Stuart, [Microsoft], DanC, Ian, David_Orchard, Tim_Bray
20:08:05 [Ian]
Missing: TBL, CL
20:08:06 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Roy, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, DanC, Norm, Ian
20:08:40 [Ian]
Proposed to accept 1 Dec minutes
20:08:45 [Ian]
So .Resolved
20:08:48 [Ian]
Proposed to accept 4 Dec minutes
20:09:01 [Ian]
20:09:03 [tim-mit]
tim-mit has joined #tagmem
20:09:05 [Ian]
PC, RF: looked fine
20:09:11 [Ian]
Resolved to accept 4 Dec minutes
20:09:17 [Zakim]
20:09:38 [Ian]
Proposed to accept monthly summary:
20:09:50 [Ian]
20:09:53 [Ian]
Regrets: CL
20:09:56 [Ian]
So accepted.
20:10:04 [Ian]
(Proposal re: summary accepted)
20:10:20 [DanC]
(regrets from CL per,430 , prolly team-only)
20:10:26 [Roy]
future regrets for 12/29 and 1/5
20:10:35 [Ian]
Janet apologizes for the couple of errors in the press release.
20:10:39 [DanC]
i.e. 29 Dec and 5 Jan, right Roy?
20:10:49 [Roy]
/me right
20:11:42 [Ian]
DO: XMLP WG request for revision of uriMediaType-9 issue and related finding
20:11:50 [Ian]
20:11:59 [Ian]
SW: We'll look at this as part of findings review.
20:12:05 [Ian]
20:12:08 [Ian]
Next meeting:
20:12:26 [Ian]
PC: Propose 5 Jan 2004
20:12:35 [Ian]
IJ: Seconded
20:12:57 [Ian]
Resolved: Next teleconf 5 Jan 2004.
20:13:09 [Ian]
1.1 Feedback from XML 2003 Town Hall?
20:13:29 [Ian]
TBray: I was satisfied with some of the commentary from the floor to improve the document.
20:14:11 [Ian]
DC: There may be confusion between Web arch and Web Services arch
20:14:22 [DanC]
in fact, there was
20:14:50 [Ian]
TBray: I think XML 2003 not our natural constituency; thinly attended town hall.
20:14:54 [Ian]
DC: Also evening...
20:14:58 [Ian]
20:15:10 [Ian]
1.2 Last Call Update
20:15:19 [Ian]
SW: I18N WG has ack'd request but not committed to review.
20:15:44 [Ian]
SW: I have emailed Voice; I've had a holding reply with Scott M.
20:16:24 [Ian]
IJ: I also think the Voice WG will be doing a review (based on my conversations with SM).
20:16:39 [Ian]
SW: Jim Hendler has committed for Webont
20:16:56 [Ian]
SW: Brian McBride will seek commitment from RDF Core WG
20:17:20 [Ian]
[19 Jan 2004 teleconf will be with I18N]
20:17:43 [TBray]
For the record, I'll be on vacation in Australia for a large part of February.
20:18:26 [Ian]
DO: The WSDL WG has agreed to review the document.
20:19:21 [Ian]
Action DO: Secure review commitment from the XMLP WG.
20:19:41 [Ian]
20:19:52 [Ian]
1.3 Patent Policy
20:20:48 [tim-mit]
For the record, I will NOT be travelling to France for the Technical Plenary meeting.
20:21:25 [Ian]
IJ: We are implementing new patent policy; likely to modify TAG charter.
20:22:50 [tim-mit]
20:23:08 [Ian]
20:23:21 [Ian]
[Discussion of patent policy]
20:25:31 [TBray]
q+ to say yes, we need to be 100% clear on this
20:26:03 [tim-mit]
20:26:24 [tim-mit]
q+ to note\ I will NOT be travelling to France for the Technical Plenary meeting.
20:26:36 [tim-mit]
20:26:39 [tim-mit]
q+ to note\ I will NOT be travelling to France for the Technical Plenary meeting.
20:26:49 [Stuart]
q- Ian
20:27:51 [DanC]
ack TBray
20:27:51 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to say yes, we need to be 100% clear on this
20:28:08 [Stuart]
20:28:40 [DanC]
(I gather we've moved on to "1.4 Video meeting in Feb 2003")
20:28:41 [tim-mit]
Paul: an all-day videolink meeting with several video location
20:29:03 [Ian]
1.4 Video meeting in Feb 2003
20:29:17 [tim-mit]
point of order
20:29:22 [tim-mit]
Zakim, point of order
20:29:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'point of order', tim-mit
20:31:10 [Ian]
20:31:19 [Ian]
20:31:20 [Stuart]
20:31:23 [Ian]
ack tim-mit
20:31:23 [Zakim]
tim-mit, you wanted to note\ I will NOT be travelling to France for the Technical Plenary meeting.
20:32:33 [Ian]
[Discussion of extent to which TAG participants represents the organization they work for]
20:32:45 [Ian]
20:33:28 [Ian]
20:34:17 [Ian]
SW: Will we have result of TAG election by 1 Feb 2004?
20:34:19 [Ian]
IJ: Yes.
20:34:34 [Norm]
Monday 2 Feb is problematic for me, FWIW
20:35:02 [Ian]
I am expecting to announce election results no later than 30 Jan.
20:35:03 [Roy]
I have a tentative conference panel in Switzerland on Feb 2 or 3
20:35:14 [Ian]
[Scheduling of video meeting]
20:35:41 [Ian]
Proposal: 9 Feb 2004 videoconf
20:35:45 [Ian]
TBray: Likely regrets.
20:35:51 [Ian]
[No resolution]
20:37:35 [Ian]
Action SW/PC: Proposed more concrete meeting around 9 Feb 2004.
20:37:46 [Ian]
20:37:52 [Ian]
1.5 Technical Plenary
20:38:00 [TBray]
20:38:22 [Ian]
SW: Should we invite observers to the TAG's ftf meeting 2 Mar 2004?
20:38:48 [Stuart]
q+ PC
20:39:07 [DanC]
ack danc
20:39:11 [Ian]
DC: If we don't ask for prior agreement from Chair, I can almost guarantee some people will wander in.
20:39:21 [Ian]
TBray: I'm ok with observers.
20:39:30 [Ian]
PC: I'm against observers.
20:39:51 [Ian]
PC: We do our technical discussion in public; why do we have to have our ftf discussions in public?
20:39:52 [DanC]
I prefer "yes, with prior arrangement"
20:39:53 [Stuart]
20:39:58 [DanC]
(but I said that in email)
20:40:05 [Stuart]
q- TBray
20:40:10 [Stuart]
q- PC
20:40:25 [Ian]
20:40:31 [Ian]
20:40:34 [Ian]
20:41:20 [Ian]
TBL: Not thrilled with the idea of a televised private meeting; people need to realize we are not meeting for them. There is also a risk that people take away partial/incorrect answers based on our discussion.
20:41:36 [TBray]
Not passionate about this one, could go either way
20:41:51 [Ian]
ack DanC
20:42:13 [Ian]
DC: I think people can attend if they ask the chair in advance and have a good reason to be there.
20:42:26 [TBray]
20:42:28 [tim-mit]
+1 for prior arrangement only
20:42:29 [Ian]
ack Ian
20:43:09 [Ian]
IJ: Past messages make clear that "observer <> short-term participant"
20:43:46 [Ian]
SW Proposes to revise his answer to "No observers"
20:43:51 [Ian]
DO: I think I would object.
20:43:54 [Ian]
TBray: I think I would too.
20:44:08 [Ian]
SW Proposes to revise his answer to "Observers ok with prior arrangemetn with the Chair."
20:44:29 [Ian]
So RESOLVED: SW will revise answer to tech plenary committee as proposed : "observers ok with prior arrangement of the CHair"
20:44:37 [Ian]
20:44:56 [Ian]
Review of "Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content
20:44:56 [Ian]
20:45:04 [Ian]
20:45:15 [Ian]
NW: I have not been able to make changes desired by DO in time for this meeting.
20:45:36 [Ian]
NW: I propose to do those revisions by our 5 Jan 2004 teleconf.
20:45:53 [Ian]
DC: Do you expect to talk about canonicalization?
20:45:54 [Ian]
NW: Yes.
20:46:10 [Ian]
NW: Also, I think 3 Nov draft is the latest draft to date.
20:46:15 [Ian]
20:46:31 [Ian]
Client handling of authoritative metadata
20:46:38 [Ian]
20:46:50 [Ian]
[IJ reviews]
20:47:22 [Ian]
20:47:22 [Ian]
20:47:30 [Ian]
20:47:36 [Ian]
20:47:42 [Ian]
20:48:24 [Ian]
Comments from WS on this draft:
20:48:45 [Ian]
20:49:24 [Ian]
SW: Diff between resource provider and resource owner?
20:49:44 [Ian]
SW: I think leads to confusion about resource v. representation.
20:49:59 [Ian]
IJ: "Resource provider" is from RF; I'd like to hear from him.
20:50:50 [DanC]
in webarch we call it the "owner" of the resource, no?
20:50:55 [Ian]
20:51:09 [Ian]
RF: I was referring by "resource provider" to people, not mechanism.
20:51:15 [tim-mit]
q+ to ask whether we can use 'owner"
20:51:51 [TBray]
ack TBray
20:52:03 [Ian]
IJ: I recognize as a bug in finding if person and origin server confused.
20:52:10 [Stuart]
ack tim
20:52:10 [Zakim]
tim-mit, you wanted to ask whether we can use 'owner"
20:52:27 [Ian]
TBray: "Ownership" is defined in arch doc.
20:52:32 [Ian]
TBL: Then let's use that in the finding.
20:52:33 [DanC]
hear hear
20:52:37 [Ian]
RF: Sure.
20:52:41 [Stuart]
20:52:45 [DanC]
20:53:24 [Ian]
20:54:01 [Ian]
SW: I propose that we discuss at 5 Jan meeting.
20:54:06 [Ian]
DC: I'd rather have two advocates.
20:54:34 [Ian]
Action TB, SW: Review finding by 5 Jan 2004 teleconference, and work with IJ.
20:54:59 [Ian]
20:55:11 [Ian]
20:55:16 [Ian]
XMLP WG request for revision of uriMediaType-9 issue and related finding
20:55:36 [Ian]
DO: XLMP WG talking about encoding media type information in XML.
20:56:05 [Ian]
DO: The finding is a bit out of date (8 Apr 2003) and IANA has made some changes since then.
20:56:12 [Ian]
20:56:18 [Ian]
From DO email:
20:56:33 [Ian]
[[[We seem to have 3 major options available for identifying media types in XML: 1) IANA media type tokens, ie xsi:mediaType="image/jpeg". 2) HTTP URIs, ie xsi:mediaType="" 3) URN URIs, ie xsi:mediaType="urn:ietf:param:contentType:image:jpeg" ]]]-- XMLP WG request for revision of uriMediaType-9 issue and related finding from David Orchard on 2003-12-12 ( from December 2003)http://li
20:56:33 [Ian], 15 Dec 2003 15:00:52 GMT
20:56:43 [Ian]
20:57:12 [TBray]
URN URIs, ie xsi:mediaType="urn:ietf:param:contentType:image:jpeg
20:57:42 [Ian]
DO: Problem with HTTP URIs was that not available for all media types.
20:57:49 [Ian]
20:57:51 [TBray]
e.g. is not available
20:58:30 [Ian]
DO: I think the finding needs to be updated.
20:58:42 [Stuart]
20:58:46 [Ian]
See CL's action item for this issue:
20:58:47 [Stuart]
ack DanC
20:58:47 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to clarify: IANA has provided http URIs for a while; but they don't promise not to 404 them at a moment's notice
20:58:50 [Ian]
20:58:51 [TBray]
20:59:09 [Ian]
DC: I have been trying to extract promise of persistence from relevant folks.
20:59:22 [Ian]
20:59:29 [Stuart]
20:59:38 [DanC]
ah... found Revised 27 May 2002
20:59:57 [Ian]
ack Ian
21:00:06 [Stuart]
q+ DO
21:00:09 [Ian]
IJ: I recall CL talking about missing URIs for media types.
21:00:17 [Ian]
IJ: Missing HTTP URIs.
21:00:47 [Stuart]
ack Tbray
21:00:50 [Stuart]
ack DO
21:00:50 [DanC]
CL's action is still outstanding, per
21:01:09 [tim-mit]
q+ To agree with Tim Bray's analysis
21:01:20 [Ian]
DO: I'd like for the TAG to address this before arch doc 1.0
21:01:31 [Ian]
DC: What is your suggestion?
21:01:40 [Ian]
DO: Revise finding, making trade-offs clear.
21:01:50 [Ian]
DO: Feb 2004 seems ok as time frame.
21:02:07 [Ian]
DO: I'd like the finding to say:
21:02:19 [Ian]
"Use HTTP URIs as provided by IANA." Or something as simple.
21:02:49 [Ian]
DC: Note that IANA answers with 200 ok, but doesn't commit to doing so forever.
21:03:07 [Ian]
RF: I suggest that DO respond to the WG that they use the media type and nothing but the media type.
21:03:15 [Ian]
21:03:16 [Stuart]
21:03:45 [DanC]
next IETF/W3C telcon is scheduled for 6 Feb 2004
21:04:00 [TBray]
+1 to Roy
21:04:09 [Ian]
DO: Validation may be simpler if there is one, not two way to specify media type.
21:04:29 [Ian]
RF: No software that I am aware of uses a URI; they all use the short string.
21:04:33 [Stuart]
ack tim
21:04:33 [Zakim]
tim-mit, you wanted to agree with Tim Bray's analysis
21:04:55 [DanC]
" Tim Bray's analysis" seems to be ambiguous
21:04:56 [Roy]
/me uses a URI to define the media type
21:05:03 [Ian]
TBL: I agree with TB's initial analysis. I think that the finding can say what *ought* to happen (use HTTP URIs) and then there's the question of what to do in practice.
21:06:22 [Ian]
TBL: I suggest that the finding suggest what ought to happen. And we continue discussions with the IANA folks. And that we find a solution in the short term for the WG.
21:06:33 [Ian]
TBL: We can build a registry in W3C space for mime types.
21:06:42 [Ian]
TBL: We've had a list of mime types before.
21:06:44 [Stuart]
21:06:45 [TBray]
Per Web Architecture, it would be ideal to refer to Internet Media Types as Web Resources, i.e. using URIs. If however the organization that logically owns these resources is not interested in publishing URIs for them, the choices are to use the Internet Media Types they publish, or cook up our own URI-addrssable registry
21:07:16 [Ian]
TBL: We can note that these URIs will not be persistent beyond, say 1 year, and we will maintain the URIs for that duration.
21:07:24 [TBray]
q+ to blanch at the idea of an interim semi-authoritative registry
21:07:42 [DanC]
fyi, Martin built a list of MIME types that sorta come from W3C recently.
21:08:02 [DanC]
(my list was URI schemes)
21:08:11 [Ian]
TBL summarizing:
21:08:16 [Ian]
1) Tell WG what to do right now
21:08:30 [Ian]
2) NEgotiate with IANA ; propose W3C manages.
21:08:42 [Ian]
the mime registry and that IANA can clone.
21:08:43 [Stuart]
ack Stuart
21:08:47 [Ian]
3) Put principles behind this in finding.
21:09:16 [Ian]
SW: I agree that finding should say that, in the absence of URIs, to use content type short strings as is.
21:09:18 [Ian]
DC: No things.
21:09:21 [Ian]
21:09:38 [Ian]
TBray: The idea of a semi-authoritative registry doesn't strike me as a good idea.
21:09:42 [Ian]
TBray: RDDL has this problem, too.
21:09:49 [DanC]
people can figure out to use names like "text/plain" on their own; there's no value in the TAG endorsing that practice.
21:10:34 [Stuart]
21:10:40 [Stuart]
ack TBray
21:10:40 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to blanch at the idea of an interim semi-authoritative registry
21:10:40 [Ian]
TBL: Will be important to have a URI for these things if there is to be RDDL mapping to RDF.
21:10:46 [Ian]
21:10:53 [DanC]
well, RDF can deal with "text/plain" strings just fine.
21:11:24 [tim-mit]
But that does not allow any old person to invent a personalmedia type.
21:11:25 [Ian]
DO: Two issues if W3C provides registry: (1) dereferencable or not? (2) or just URI space not used for any other resource types.
21:11:39 [Roy]
suggestion: 1) Tell working group to use media-type with some simple algorithm for parameter ordering (lexical); 2) write up the algorithm as instruction to IANA (an RFC); 3) point out to WGs that the media type is simply a URI relative to the IANA registry base URI.
21:11:58 [TBray]
Yes, but I want to say that with respect to, that has a nature of <insert namespace name for XML Schema>
21:12:13 [Ian]
RF: E.g. of algorithm: List the parameters in lexical/alphabetical order.
21:12:18 [TBray]
but, if I want to provide a related resource that's a CSS stylesheet, how do I identify its nature?
21:12:38 [Ian]
RF: Point out to the WGs that there's a relative URI into a registry, wherever the registry is. That way you get both - media types and URIs at the same time.
21:12:47 [Ian]
RF: I suggest we update the finding to say this.
21:12:56 [Stuart]
21:13:10 [Ian]
RF: To get IANA attention, write RDF...
21:13:13 [Ian]
21:13:18 [Ian]
DC: Been there /done that.
21:13:25 [Ian]
RF: When the RFC is published, IANA will follow it.
21:13:34 [Ian]
RF: There mandate is to follow the instructions of the IETF...
21:13:41 [Ian]
DC:...except when the instructions conflict.
21:13:54 [Ian]
DC: Mark Baker and I are to ask for last call of our Internet Draft
21:14:34 [Stuart]
21:17:29 [Stuart]
suggestion: 1) Tell working group to use media-type with some simple algorithm for parameter ordering (lexical); 2) write up the algorithm as instruction to IANA (an RFC); 3) point out to WGs that the media type is simply a URI relative to the IANA registry base URI.
21:17:41 [Stuart]
that was from Roy above.
21:17:44 [Ian]
ack DanC
21:17:44 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask DaveO to come to the IETF/W3C telcon
21:17:47 [TBray]
suggestion: 1) Tell working group to use media-type with some simple algorithm for parameter ordering (lexical); 2) write up the algorithm as instruction to IANA (an RFC); 3) point out to WGs that the media type is simply a URI relative to the IANA registry base URI.
21:17:54 [Ian]
DC to DO: Do you want to attend the W3C/IETF meeting?
21:18:02 [Ian]
[6 Feb 2004]
21:18:12 [Ian]
DO: If I'm available; sure.
21:18:40 [Ian]
Action DC: Invite DO to IETF/W3C for 6 Feb 2004.
21:18:50 [DanC]
... noting varous risks
21:19:02 [Ian]
SW: Any finding updates expected?
21:19:25 [Ian]
DO: I am hearing "If you need to make a decision right now; use media type strings. We are negotiating the use of URIs for the IANA registry."
21:19:39 [Ian]
DO: We'd like authoritative URIs, but we're not there yet.
21:20:01 [Ian]
TBray: I heard RF suggest that we start minting URIs for the IANA...
21:20:39 [Ian]
RF: The media type is structured like a URI; if you start out using the media type alone, but add an ordering mechanism for the parameters (which are rarely used), the name that you use is a URI. It's just relative.
21:20:41 [Ian]
21:20:54 [Stuart]
ack Dan
21:20:54 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say if you need a decision right now, TAG isn't finished with the issue, so go ahead and make your own decision
21:20:56 [Ian]
DC: I haven't heard any suggested changes to finding that i consider an improvement.
21:21:16 [Ian]
TBray: I hear RF saying that we take proactive action.
21:21:22 [Ian]
DC: We are doing that; those negotiations are not yet done.
21:21:50 [Ian]
DC: I'm against some short-term action by the TAG; people can do what they want, but not with the TAG's blessing.
21:22:09 [Ian]
SW: I think we have already decided this issue, and the answer is in the finding.
21:22:44 [DanC]
tim's question is too long
21:22:45 [Ian]
TBL: I hear people saying "These media type strings are relative URIs w.r.t. the IANA registry....we need to do some things to make this happen in practice..."
21:23:05 [Ian]
TBL: But I don't think what we need to do with IANA has to be our first action.
21:23:17 [Ian]
TBL: In fact, IANA may respond to the community if there is consensus there.
21:23:27 [Stuart]
ack Ian
21:23:37 [Ian]
21:24:00 [Ian]
DO: Is there any connection between DC/MB's internet draft and RF's algorithm?
21:24:34 [Ian]
RF: My suggestion for the WG is to just use the media types today.
21:24:54 [Ian]
TBL: Can we say: If you want to look ahead, treat as a relative URI reference. But we can't tell you the base URI today.
21:26:26 [Ian]
TBL: I think the answer to the WG should be:
21:26:33 [Ian]
a) Identify media types with URIs (of course)
21:26:40 [Ian]
b) But we can't tell you yet the base of the URI
21:26:43 [Roy]
agrees with TBL
21:26:54 [Ian]
c) We can't make guarantees about persistence/dereferenceability today.
21:27:03 [Ian]
DC: That's not the answer I want to give today.
21:27:22 [Ian]
TBL: Why does the WG need to make any changes to its spec?
21:27:53 [tim-mit]
DO: What si the base changes?
21:27:56 [tim-mit]
21:28:56 [Ian]
DC: I expect the TAG to resolve the issue in good course; I don't want to endorse anything until we resolve the issue.
21:29:22 [Ian]
DC: I am waiting for the IANA negotiations to finish first.
21:29:44 [tim-mit]
21:29:46 [DanC]
"The TAG would prefer that dereferencable http: scheme URIs be assigned under the authority of the body that maintains the Internet media type registry."
21:29:54 [Ian]
q+ DO
21:30:03 [Stuart]
ack DO
21:30:24 [Ian]
DO: I think I can wait a few weeks before I next talk to XMLP WG about this.
21:30:31 [Ian]
ack tim-mit
21:30:54 [Ian]
TBL: I'm concerned about the idea of trying to convince IANA before we implement this on our site.
21:31:20 [Ian]
TBL: The picture that RF painted was that, if you write up an RFC, and you have some community behind you, then IANA will go ahead and do it.
21:31:36 [Ian]
TBL: I've not seen the IANA agree "in principle"
21:32:31 [Ian]
SW: I request that people review the current finding and suggest concrete revisions.
21:32:32 [Ian]
21:32:33 [Zakim]
21:32:37 [Zakim]
21:32:37 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop