All,
Just wanted to clue y'all in on this conversation. The Atom extension
drafts listed below entered an "Unofficial last call" state about three
weeks ago. As of today I'm declaring these stable and will not be
making any further changes on them unless a) significant bugs/problems
are found or b) the Atom protocol works stretches out beyond the
expiration date of the current drafts. Once the Atom protocol work is
complete, I will submit these as standards track RFC's as per Scott's
preference stated in the notes below.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-05.txt
(will publish soon on the IETF lists)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-03.txt
(will publish soon on the IETF lists)
Thanks to everyone who submitted feedback on these.
- James
-----Original Message-----
From: James M Snell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:21 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-03.txt
This is fine. There really is no risk on this particular
extension with
the protocol draft but your suggestion sounds like good general
practice. For now I'll settle for informally declaring that
the specs
are stable and waiting for the primary work on the protocol to
complete. Thanks! :-)
Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
Frankly I'd prefer to wait on documents like this until after atompub
completes both the format and protocol documents. I realize
that there
isn't a normative dependency on the protocol document, but
I'd really prefer
to be sure that it stays that way. You can try to convince
me that there's
no risk if you wish.
The normal process, though, is for you to try to convince an
AD to shepherd
your work. You can also send it directly to the RFC Editor
if you wish, but
they will then ask the IESG if there are any potential
conflicts or overlaps
with existing IETF work. In short, it'll take longer.
The AD then reviews the document, we deal with the review,
and a 4-week last
call is requested. The doc goes through IESG evaluation
after the last
call, just like a working group document does.
-Scott-
-----Original Message-----
From: James M Snell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:57 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-03.txt
Hello Scott,
Over the past couple of months I have been developing a number of
extensions to Atom. I believe that a couple of these are
ready to move
forward as standards-track RFC's as individual submissions.
The first
is draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-03.txt [1]. This spec
defines a new
license link relation than can be used to associate copyright
licenses
(e.g. creative commons) with Atom feeds and entries.
Feedback on the
spec has been received from members of the Atompub WG and
from folks
from Creative Commons and the larger XML developer community mostly
through direct feedback to me.
If everything looks acceptable to you, what is the next step
on moving
this forward as a standards track rfc?
- James
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-l
icense-03.txt
