Thanks for the feedback. Comments inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:55 AM > To: [email protected]; Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: [email protected]; Lisa Dusseault > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-nottingham-site-meta-03 > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-nottingham-site-meta-03 > Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani > Review Date: Oct 16, 2009 > IETF LC End Date: Nov 6, 2009 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a UNKNOWN document. > > Note that I am not sure what the intended status of this > document is (hence the "UNKNOWN" above.) The draft itself appears > to think it is headed for "Informational", but the IETF Tracker > appears to think otherwise -- it thinks that the intended > status is "Proposed Standard" (please see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-nottingham-site-meta/).
The draft was initially proposed as informational but with the support of the area director, the last call was made to promote it to a proposed standard. Assuming there is no objection, we would like it changed to standards track. > Other than that, the draft has: > > Major issues: 0. > Minor issues: 1. > Nits/editorial comments: 0. > > Minor issue: > > 1) In the past when we have established some of these registries > (c.f., rfc5341, rfc3969) we have populated these registries > with "initial values" --- essentially grand-fathering existing > usages. > > Given that, I am merely curious on whether it makes sense to > grand-father in the "robots.txt" usage in this draft? Of > course, implementations would still search for "robots.txt" > in the normal location. The problem is that the registry is only for well-known location documents located within the /.well-known/ prefix. Since robots.txt and other such document (p3 and cross domain for example) are located in the root, adding them to the registry will cause confusion since it will change their expected location: http://example.com/.well-known/robots.txt Proposing such a migration is not likely to make any actual deployment difference (the millions of sites using it already are not likely to move it or copy it), but is likely to confuse new developers. I think what is more likely is for future versions of these files and new files to use the registry and avoid collision. What we can do is include an appendix with the list of all known well-known locations outside the new prefix to help in documenting existing practices. However, that is not likely to be complete and might cause a long delay in publication. EHL > Thanks, > > - vijay > -- > Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent > 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) > Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org} > Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
