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: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol
At 11:54 AM +0900 9/15/06, Martin Duerst wrote: When last counting, two weeks were fourteen days. That would make the closure date of WG Last Call September 28th. Or did I get anything wrong? You got wrong the fact that the WG started discussing the draft two days ago. WG Last Call is as long as is needed, and we thought that about two weeks was needed.
Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol
Just a procedural nit: At 02:13 06/09/15, Paul Hoffman wrote: >The WG Last Call will close September 26. Your email is dated as follows: Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:13:13 -0700. When last counting, two weeks were fourteen days. That would make the closure date of WG Last Call September 28th. Or did I get anything wrong? Regards,Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol
What are we going to do with the Security Considerations? We had two paces on the table. Robert withdrew his. I made some edits to mine. At this point, my Pace is the only one still on the table. - James Paul Hoffman wrote: > > With the publication of draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-10.txt, we are ready > for WG Last Call. This is a two-week period where people look intently > at the document and comment on it. New Paces are still allowed, and are > encouraged if you are proposing anything more than a few sentences worth > of change. > At the end of the Last Call, we grind out one last revision, and the WG > passes it on to our fearless AD to take it to the IETF as a whole. > > The WG Last Call will close September 26. > > Please remember to make your subject lines meaningful when you start > threads, and when you change the topic. Thanks! > >
WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol
With the publication of draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-10.txt, we are ready for WG Last Call. This is a two-week period where people look intently at the document and comment on it. New Paces are still allowed, and are encouraged if you are proposing anything more than a few sentences worth of change. At the end of the Last Call, we grind out one last revision, and the WG passes it on to our fearless AD to take it to the IETF as a whole. The WG Last Call will close September 26. Please remember to make your subject lines meaningful when you start threads, and when you change the topic. Thanks!
