On 5/16/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
James changed the document in response to those messages. That should
be enough. Maybe she could ask James about them. It's not my
obligation to spelunk for them, and it's certainly not your place to
start making demands like that.
>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.
Well, I'm not going to quibble with you about procedural details. But
I have to wonder why they're in the document at all.
Looks like the IETF wants to publish a "proposed standard" explicitly
designed to break a very popular implementation, with no technical
reason. I think that speaks volumes about the IETF, its management,
and the quality of its "individual" contributors.
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.
Well, I don't want to standardize some of what James has deployed. It
won't work in Sean's implementation. I'm not sure I can interoperably
implement the parts in question. Your two biggest client implementers
aren't real happy about this. It might be appropriate if you really
stretch, but it's sure not smart.
--
Robert Sayre
