Hello Paul,
What's the difference between "IETF consensus" (for which you gave a -1) and "it's up to the IESG" (which seems what you think we should let happen)?
In my view, "IETF consensus" is another way of saying the IESG has the last word. If there is a better way to express this in the spec, then what would that be?
Or would we say that because the atom namespace appears in an IETF spec, it's obvious that only the IETF (thus ultimately the IESG) can add stuff, but we don't have to say so?
Regards, Martin.
At 11:57 05/05/10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>At 7:22 PM -0700 5/9/05, Tim Bray wrote:
>>On May 9, 2005, at 6:52 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I think we should be clearer that new elements in the Atom namespace
>>>and unprefixed attributes with parent elements in the Atom namespace
>>>can only be added by IETF consensus. Thoughts?
>>
>>I wonder if there's some standard IETF practice when you define a language as regards future change control?
>
>No. Nearly every protocol tries to go its own way. It's a mess.
>
>>Generally -1. This spec defines what Atom 1.0 is, why try to micro-manage the future? -Tim
>
>Agree on the -1.
>
>At 10:34 PM -0400 5/9/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
>>Fair enough. But can just anyone add stuff to the Atom namespace?
>
>If the IESG lets them, yes.
>
>We gotta trust the IESG after the WG shuts down. Fortunately, they have earned that trust over time.
>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--Internet Mail Consortium
>
