I don't feel that changing parts of RFC4287 is appropriate for an
individual draft, particularly when the WG that did RFC4287 exists.
Certainly in order to update RFC4287 it would *have* to be Proposed
Standard. What constitutes an update or change (rather than an
optional extension) might be open to some debate.
Echoing Tim, I agree there's no problem with James doing an
individual draft for now so that everybody can evaluate a specific
proposal and suggest what should be done with it.
Lisa
On Dec 11, 2006, at 11:39 PM, James M Snell wrote:
*If* the document proceeds to Proposed Standard, the new RFC would
update RFC4287 either by adding a new type param or by deprecating the
use of application/atom+xml for atom entry documents in favor of a new
media type. No other part of RFC4287 would be affected.
Ideally, I would much rather this be a WG draft. I pinged Tim
about it
the other day and he suggested that I go ahead with a I-D for now and
that we can explore whether or not to move forward with it as a WG
draft
later.
- James
Mark Nottingham wrote:
What would the relationship of that document be to RFC4287?
Cheers,
On 2006/12/11, at 7:32 PM, James M Snell wrote:
The I-D would be an individual draft, not a WG draft.
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
