On 5/17/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 7:11 AM +0200 5/17/06, Robert Sayre wrote:
>On 5/17/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>This document describes an extension to an existing standards-track
>>document: it should either be on standards track or it should not be
>>an RFC.
>
>Where is that written down?
RFC 2026.
That's a long document that's been updated by other process RFCs. Care
to point me at the relevant section? I didn't see one.
> Didn't Julian just get some WebDAV
>extensions approved as Experimental?
Maybe, but that's irrelevant.
I don't know much about the IETF, but I do know the process consists
mostly of the unwritten rules, rather than the written ones. So, it
seems to me that it is very much relevant.
In fact, I can quote you on this, from the initial Atom meeting at Sun
Microsystems.
"If you're big on process, the IETF probably isn't for you", or
something to that effect. Why the change of heart?
The fact that some WGs don't follow the
IETF process doesn't mean we should do the same. If our AD (who is
also the AD for WebDAV)
That's true in the sense that our AD is in the Apps area. However, Ted
Hardie is the AD advisor for WebDAV, and those documents were approved
before Lisa was an AD, IIRC. But, I suspect you knew all of that.
wanted this document to not be on standards
track, she would not have put out the IETF last call for the document
to be on standards track.
OK, phrase it that way. Why does our AD want this document on the
standards track? It was clearly designed without much research, no
input from client implementers, and contains lots of extra cruft. We
also
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
