I've added http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion/web/internetdraft to the wiki which expands on remaining issues w/ the draft.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Anthony Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- (( 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
