Subject: Re: Method Reviewer

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:25:30 GMT

Patrik Falstrom wrote:

>My thinking on how this should work in gnereal is that:
>
>(1) There is a review process described, which can for example be that 
the
>proposal should be announced on a mailing list
>
>(2) This mailinglist is viewed among other people by the MR, which is
>appointed by the AD(s)
>
>(3) The MR looks at the comments on the mailing list and declares 
consensus
>or not, given that the proposal fulfils all requirements regarding
>documentation, technical clearity etc etc, and this is reported to IANA
>
>(4) The descision of the MR can be appealed to the AD, then the IESG, 
then
>the IAB etc etc like "normal" appeal process
>
>If this is not what is described in the iCal (or whatever) RFCs, then 
maybe
>they should be updated. I guess the MIME ones are the ones which describe
>this "the best way as of today" so you/one should have a look at them
>before carving things in stone.

Patrik: I think we have most of this except for the appeal step in #4. 
This will have to be amended in the iCalendar RFCs and changed in the 
current CAP draft. THANKS!

-- Frank