RFC 4685 on Atom Threading Extensions
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 4685 Title: Atom Threading Extensions Author: J. Snell Status: Standards Track Date: September 2006 Mailbox:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pages: 12 Characters: 24403 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag:draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-12.txt URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4685.txt This memo presents a mechanism that allows feeds publishers to express threaded discussions within the Atom Syndication Format. [STANDARDS TRACK] This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza USC/Information Sciences Institute ... ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol
On 27/9/06 8:15 AM, "Tim Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PaceAppEdited: Lots of discussion. There seems universal support for > the utility of an app:edited element, and an assertion that entry > members SHOULD contain one. On the other hand, every discussion of > sort order has spiraled instantly into a rat-hole. > > Conclusion. PaceAppEdited is accepted, in part. The second part of > the proposal, defining the app:edited element, is ACCEPTED. The > first part, imposing a requirement on the sort order of collections, > clearly does not have consensus support. There also seems to be universal support for the notion that collection feeds could be sorted by something other than what's currently in the spec. The spec currently not only says collections are to be sorted by atom:updated, but because of the MUST it also says it MUST NOT be sorted by anything *else*, which is a problem. Section 10.0 ΒΆ 2 says this: The entries in the returned Atom Feed MUST be ordered by their "atom:updated" property, with the most recently updated entries coming first in the document order. Clients SHOULD be constructed in consideration of the fact that changes which do not alter the atom:updated value of an entry will not affect the position of the entry in a Collection. We need to either strike that entire paragraph, or at the very least make that MUST into a SHOULD. I say +1 to s/MUST/SHOULD/ e.
Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol
On Sep 26, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Here's a list of Paces that weren't disposed of with the last consensus call: First of all, did Sam get them all? Please speak up soonest about anything that was missed and might have a realistic chance. PaceAppEdited: Lots of discussion. There seems universal support for the utility of an app:edited element, and an assertion that entry members SHOULD contain one. On the other hand, every discussion of sort order has spiraled instantly into a rat-hole. Conclusion. PaceAppEdited is accepted, in part. The second part of the proposal, defining the app:edited element, is ACCEPTED. The first part, imposing a requirement on the sort order of collections, clearly does not have consensus support. = PaceAppEdited2: Not enough support, some opposition, big and complicated. REJECTED. = PaceAppModified3: Lots of discussion, no real consensus, eventually replaced by PaceAppEdited. REJECTED. = PaceAppVersion: Got no +1s, some opposition: REJECTED. = PaceCollectionLinkType: zero discussion: REJECTED. = PaceFixModel: 2 supporters, not enough: REJECTED. But note that this is inconsistent with some of the language in section 9, so editorial work is required. = PaceLocationPointsToEntry: zero discussion: REJECTED. = PaceOrderCollectionsByAppModified2: zero discussion: REJECTED. = PaceRemoveConnegSuggestionOnServiceDoc: almost no discussion: REJECTED. = PaceRemoveOutOfLineCategoriesFromCategoryDocument: 2 supporters, little discussion, not enough. REJECTED. = PaceRevertTitle: Lots of -1's: REJECTED. = PaceSecurityConsiderationsRevised: We need something in the Security Considerations section of the document, and there was at least some support for the ideas in this section in the past. The other proposal for words for this section was withdrawn. Therefore, this Pace is ACCEPTED with the understanding that the issue of what our security considerations are is not closed and may be modified after the IETF last call. = PaceServiceLinkType: Not enough discussion/support: REJECTED. = UseElementsForAppCollectionTitles3: Seems to have been incorporated in the draft.
Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol
Paul Hoffman wrote: The WG Last Call will close September 26. Here's a list of Paces that weren't disposed of with the last consensus call: PaceAppEdited PaceAppEdited2 PaceAppModified3 PaceAppVersion PaceCollectionLinkType PaceFixModel PaceLocationPointsToEntry PaceOrderCollectionsByAppModified2 PaceRemoveConnegSuggestionOnServiceDoc PaceRemoveOutOfLineCategoriesFromCategoryDocument PaceRevertTitle PaceSecurityConsiderationsRevised PaceServiceLinkType UseElementsForAppCollectionTitles2 UseElementsForAppCollectionTitles3 - Sam Ruby
Re: Atom Threading Extensions, RFC 4685
> > FYI... The Atom Threading Extensions are now RFC 4685. > > - James > Congrats James for this extension :D - Sylvain
