At 4:33 AM +0200 5/16/06, Robert Sayre wrote:
I thought the working group was fairly clear about the dubious value and placement of these attributes,
For the benefit of Lisa, who is the sponsoring AD for this document, please list links to those messages.
So you don't think they're important or needed, and then WG doesn't have consensus on them.
Quite true, but it is true because there has never been a call for consensus on the document, and there won't be in the future.
In the IETF, individuals can submit documents to become RFCs without those documents being Working Group items. This document (and all of the other format extension documents out there) fall into that category. If the author asks an Area Director to have the document published as a standards-track RFC, the AD will most likely ask for input on any relevant mailing list, including any existing WG mailing lists.
You don't have to listen to the WG, but if one or two WG members are going to deploy and then standardize whatever they've done, that's an informational document.
That is not true. If it is a protocol or a format, standards track is also appropriate.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
