Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard

[James M Snell]

That's kind of hard to comment on given that I'm not exactly sure what
"solution" you're suggesting.  If it's changing the namespace URI, I'd
be annoyed to do so given the facts that it's currently already being
used in the wild and that you're the only one, as far as I can recall,
who has actually ever complained about it.  That said, however, "very
annoyed" does not equal "unwilling". If the IESG determines it to be a
problem, then changing the namespace is fine.  I trust their judgement.

- James

Robert Sayre wrote:
> ...Even the draft's author
> acknowledges that it is a valid concern, though he probably doesn't
> have the same solution in mind.
> 

Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard

[Robert Sayre]

On 7/18/06, Lisa Dusseault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

We don't have rules against such namespace choices.  We
could argue about whether or not we should have such rules,


Well, there is a BCP about this.


At this point, it's very rare to
pull a document or change something like this that would affect
implementations.  Often the remedy at this stage is...


I should hope that the IETF/IESG doesn't encounter this situation
often, but that doesn't seem like a strong argument. How commonly are
private namespaces used in IETF standards? The right argument to have
is whether the namespace is a problem. Even the draft's author
acknowledges that it is a valid concern, though he probably doesn't
have the same solution in mind.

--

Robert Sayre

Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard

[Lisa Dusseault]

I can't speak for all of the IESG, how closely they reviewed the  
document and how carefully they considered the appropriateness of the  
namespace.  We don't have rules against such namespace choices.  We  
could argue about whether or not we should have such rules, but the  
results of that argument would most likely affect future specs.


To be clear about Sam's issue, Sam asked about change control for the  
document, and did not suggest changing the namespace or some other  
change.  He said "I want to confirm that we hae sufficient control  
over this specification that we have change control for the future."   
We do, so a simple "Yes" answer was the resolution that addressed  
Sam's concern.


It's too bad if Sam's review raised a point that you would have  
preferred to consider in Last Call.  At this point, it's very rare to  
pull a document or change something like this that would affect  
implementations.  Often the remedy at this stage is to start working  
on the next revision of the RFC and/or to make a note to fix in the  
next revision.  So the IETF change control over this document may  
answer your concern, one way or another, as well.


Lisa

On Jul 9, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:


On 7/4/06, Lisa Dusseault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I wrote the synopsis, in which I was careful not to state that it was
a WG document.  I believe it was accurate for what it said although
it's very brief.  I discussed explicitly with the IESG during the
IESG tele-conference calls that there was some lengthy debate and
disagreement over certain mechanisms in the draft.



Hi Lisa,

Thanks for the clarification. You may have missed another question I
recently asked, so I'll repeat it here. I am concerned that purl.org
lists the document author as the owner of the namespace URI, and I
wonder how the IESG came to the conclusion that the namespace is not a
problem. I see Sam Hartman raised the issue. What was the resolution?
Could the draft advance to Draft- or Full-Standard in that namespace?

--

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."