I will schedule the document for IESG review during the 23 June telechat. Thanks for the notes.
-Scott- > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:35 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: Tim Bray; Atom WG > Subject: draft-ietf-atompub-format-09.txt is ready for IESG review > > Greetings again. As the shepherd for this document, I would like to > ask you to bring it to the IESG for final review. The WG has worked > hard on this document after IETF Last Call, and made many changes > that incorporate the WG rough consensus on issues that were brought > up during and after IETF Last Call. > > Some members of the Working Group remain unenthusiastic about some > sections of the document, but we strongly believe that there is rough > (or better) consensus in support of the document as a whole. For some > of the parts with the most contention, there cannot be more than very > rough consensus due to basic differences in the way people would > design parts of the format, particularly given that we have many > models in existence with the different flavors of RSS. For some parts > of the document, there is contention about whether or not a > particular item should or should not be in the Atom core versus being > an extension. For some parts, there is contention whether there > should be MUST/SHOULD/MAY leeway for content creators in the presence > or absence of an element, or the semantic content of an element; we > really pushed RFC 2119 around during the past few months. > > The length of the mailing list archive is anomalous in the IETF, but > so is the large number of regular active contributors and the breadth > of parts of the document to which they contributed. This huge amount > of input has caused the document to be more seriously reviewed, by > more eyes, than a typical IETF document, but it has also caused more > opportunity for disagreement along the way. Yet we still ended up > with a format that meets the goals of the charter and the general > agreement of most of the participants in the Working Group. > > Please let us know how if the IESG has any concerns with the document > during their review. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --Internet Mail Consortium > >
