Walter brings up an important point; has, or when will, the drafts be compared to the requirements in the charter?
Cheers,
On Feb 2, 2005, at 8:36 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
The charter says that Atom will work for archiving. We don't know that it will, and it hasn't been discussed for months.
Is the current Atom spec sufficient for archiving? If not, we aren't done.
wunder
--On February 2, 2005 5:46:51 PM -0800 Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
focus on something that they don't want will likely cause us to do a worse job at carefully reviewing things that we all want.
Greetings again. And, thanks again for all the work people did on the last work queue rotation. We now have the end of the format draft squarely in sight.
The WG still has a bunch of finished Paces that have not been formally considered, a (thankfully) much smaller number of unfinished Paces, and a couple of promises that "I'll write that up as a Pace soon". We need to finish soon in order to make our milestone, and I believe we can do so gracefully.
On Monday, Feb. 7, the Working Group's final queue rotation will consist of all Paces open at that time. Any Paces that have obvious holes in them ("to be filled in later", "more needs to go here", etc.) will be ignored. We have had over a year of time here, and many weeks since the previous attempt to close things out. On Monday, Feb. 14, we will assess WG consensus and ask the document authors to put together a final draft.
Note that this is not the last opportunity for work on the Atom format. For one thing, there are plenty of non-core extensions that folks have been mulling over; having the core draft finally finished will help those to emerge. Further, we need to do the final work on the protocol document. Also, during the formal IETF Last Call, discussion of the format draft will be welcome from everyone (including people who have not read any of the earlier drafts).
Please do *not* rush out to write a Pace unless it is for something that is *truly* part of the Atom core, and you really believe that it is likely that there will be consensus within a week. If your idea is appropriate as an extension, or is for something that is quite similar to something else that has explicitly gotten lack of consensus, please do not write a Pace. In the former case, please hold your extensions for a few weeks; in the latter case, please recognize that asking the WG to
So, if you have an incomplete Pace now, you have a few more days to complete it. Of course, everyone should feel free to continue talking about the current Paces now, and to continue to suggest editorial changes to the current Internet Draft.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
-- Walter Underwood Principal Architect, Verity
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
