Jose, On 8 Oct 2004, at 10:44, Rey Jose wrote: ...
The ietf-types list is for informal media type reviews only. It is not where types are "considered" or "approved". Somtimes people comment on registrations, other times they don't.
Yes, you are right, "review" is the correct term.
However, reading the attached email from Colin, I understand that this review is 'required' for WGLC. This means that whether this review is "no comments" or there are in fact comments, I (we) have to know in order to progress the document. Specially this part (original attached):
"In future, as new RTP payload formats are developed, we will require expert review of the media type registration as part of the working group last call process. Please contact the chairs for guidance on the procedure for this review, when you believe your draft is ready for working group last call. We will not forward drafts to the IESG for publication **unless they have received such review.**"
This is an AVT policy, to avoid last minute confusion and problems such as we had with the RTP payload format for text conversation; it's not a wider IETF requirement. If no comments result after a reasonable time period, so be it. Colin