Hi, I think that's really for me to answer, since I still worked on the draft back then and it was I who made that choice. (Who am I? In this context I'm basically someone who'd listened to Jim's presentation and who knows internet-draft syntax etc. well enough to write one quickly.)
"Gould, James" wrote: > > I don't recall a request for adoption of an EPP extension draft that didn't > include an XML schema and corresponding example XML, [...] Why not add it to > the draft ahead of requesting working group adoption? > Because it didn't seem clear that the XML schema would be stable enough to be worth the bother. You may notice that the error codes were also left unallocated, for the same reason. It seemed likely that there'd be substantive text changes, and it didn't seem sensible to fix the XML and error codes until the substance of the text had had the benefit of WG discussion. As I understood it, the process would be: 1. I type Jim's presentation from that meeting using proper internet-draft syntax 2. Discussion of the core concepts 3. Request for adoption 4. More discussion of core concepts 5. Assignment of error codes, XML syntax and other things that follow once the previous points are settled 6. Discussion of wording, examples etc 7. WGLC 8. IETF LC 9. Publication It sounds to me as if you'd prefer a different sequence, with syntax earlier and WG adoption much later, maybe around point 6-7? Or maybe you'd have preferred a volunteer who happened to know XML schema as well as internet-drafts, and could have done that with equal ease? Anyway, you asked why, now you know. Arnt
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
