Subject: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: happiana -- IETF/W3C/IANA Registry Happiness

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:49:57 -0400

Why can't we get informative explanations of what problem non-WG
mailing lists are trying to address?

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:54 PM, IETF Secretariat
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
>
> List address: [email-masked]
> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/happiana/
> To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/happiana
>
> Purpose: This list is for discussion of IANA Registry issues to
> result in Happy IETF, Happy W3C, and Happy IANA.
>
> For additional information, please contact the list administrators.
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:54:49 -0600

>> result in Happy IETF, Happy W3C, and Happy IANA.

Various folks have found it difficult to do things like register new
media types. There's been discussion among a small group of people to
streamline those processes (getting ADs out of the way, improving the
interface to IANA, etc.). The list started out as a small, private
design team and is now being opened to wider participation.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:37:05 -0600

> design team and is now being opened to wider participation.

To be 100% clear, the difficulties that some folks have reported are
decidedly *not* limited to media types. Those working on the happiana
"design team" are looking into the possibility of "bis" documents
regarding registration procedures for URI schemes (RFC 4395), link
relations (RFC 5988), media types (RFC 4288), header fields (RFC 3864)
primarily for HTTP, and perhaps others. It might be that some of the
reported difficulties are more a matter of perception than of reality.
It might be that the relevant Area Directors (mostly in apps) need to
get out of the way so that SDOs wanting to register things in the
standards tree can interface directly with IANA. And so on. If you are
are interested in these issues, please join the discussion on the
[email-masked] list:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/happiana

Thanks.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/