On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/8/09 2:44 PM, "Anthony Bryan" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I changed the draft to standards track after email discussions w/ Lisa >> Dussealt, IETF Applications area director, although I don't remember >> all the details offhand, but yes I do remember it making things longer >> & more complicated. I'm not in a rush. >> >> at the same time, I think we've had what the IETF appreciates for >> quite a while now: "rough consensus and running code" >> all help hammering things out w/in the IETF community & making the >> spec/draft airtight will be great. >> I've been thinking about changing it to Informational as well. Are >> there any drawbacks for Informational vs Standards Track? > > It is really a questions of whether the extra time is worth your effort. > Beside having the prestige of an Internet Standard, it is generally easier > to get big corporations and governments to adopt your specs when they are > form a recognized SSO than just a "bunch of geeks".
an "Informational" RFC vs "Standards Track" RFC (the RFC Category, see top of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287 or "Intended status" of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-metalink for what we're talking about) will have a big influence on corporate/government adoption? that is what we're going for, we want metalink to be used in every place that it's useful. our only problem now might be PR/marketing because people might not know about it, or trust it being just from a "bunch of geeks" :) like you said. I think we have just about as much community adoption as we can get. > Also, it helps prevent others from getting a competing effort sanctioned as > a standard (but I doubt that will be an issue here). > > There are two main questions you have to ask yourself: > > 1. Do you have everyone you want to adopt this at the table and happy with > where the spec is? metalink is about making downloads transparently easier, so for these improvements to reach the most people it needs to be supported by more browsers. I know Shawn Wilsher, who does the Firefox download manager, plans to work on a metalink extension. & people from Opera & IE are at least aware of it. but none of them are actively involved. > 2. Are you willing to make changes to the spec in order to get it approved > as a standard? Definitely! >> we'd be happy for your guidance. we don't have the funds to visit IETF >> meetings (maybe in the future) & know you've been lately, & working on >> OAuth w/ the IETF so any help would be really nice! > > You can get this done without any IETF meetings. If there isn't opposition, > you can get a standard without a working group. > > I am happy to help you get this through the IETF. The first step is to get > this in front of some people and solicit feedback. I can help with that. Its > been a while since I've read the spec, so if this is something you are > serious about, I am happy to do. yes, it is something I'm serious about, and would be thankful for any more help. you've gone out of your way to join in here & tell us about things already, thanks for that. not that many others have that aren't directly interested. I've gotten it in front of as many people as I could on mailing lists (IETF ones like HTTP, Apps, etc, for the past year, all sorts of open source ones for the past 3 years) and such, and incorporated all the feedback. the two main issues I'm aware of are listed in the draft at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-metalink-06#appendix-C Section 5 - Content negotiation vs HTTP Link header. Section 4.2.14 - Need to allow signatures other than PGP. -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
