The atom:author element name is embarrassing. Make it atom:creator. There were no objections to that.
wunder --On May 26, 2005 10:26:54 AM -0700 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <co-chair-mode> > On behalf of Paul and myself: This is it. The initial phase of the WG's > work in designing the Atompub data format specification is finished over, > pining for the fjords, etc. Please everyone reach around and pat yourselves > on the back, I think the community will generally view this as a fine piece > of work. > > Stand by for announcements on buckling down on Atom-Protocol. > > Note that this is a pronouncement, not a "call for further debate". Here > are the next steps: > > 1. Editors take the assembled changes and produce a format-09 I-D. Sooner > is better. > 2. They post the I-D. > 3. Paul sends Scott a message, cc'ing the WG, that we're done. > 4. At this point there may be objections from the WG. We decide whether to > accept the objections and pull the draft back, or tell the objectors they'll > have to pursue the appeal process. > 5. The IESG process takes over at this point and we'll eventually hear back > from them. > > Last two draft changes: > > 1. PaceAtomIdDOS > > We think that the WG has consensus that it is of benefit to add a warning to > section 8 "Security Considerations". The language from PaceAtomIdDos is > mostly OK, except that the late suggestion of talking about spoofing instead > of DOS seemed to get general support. I reworded slightly. We'll leave it > up to the editors to decide whether a new subsection of section 8 is > required. > > "Atom Processors should be aware of the potential for spoofing attacks where > the attacker publishes an atom:entry with the atom:id value of an entry from > another feed, perhaps with a falsified atom:source element duplicating the > atom:id of the other feed. Atom Processors which, for example, suppress > display of duplicate entries by displaying only one entry with a particular > atom:id value, perhaps by selecting the one with the latest atom:updated > value, might also take steps to determine whether the entries originated from the same publisher before considering them to be duplicates." > > 2. PaceAtom10 > > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceAtom10 > > We just missed this one in the previous consensus call; seeing lots of +1's > and no pushback, it's accepted. > </co-chair-mode> > > > -- Walter Underwood Principal Architect, Verity
