W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: mandatory draft sections (was Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt))

From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:34:07 -0400
Message-ID: <46E8230F.7080004@att.com>
CC: ietf@ietf.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, saag@mit.edu, ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org

My viewpoint is somewhat in between. The sections need to be there, but
only in the final draft(s) that are intended for Last Call. Prior to
that, those sections don't need anything more than a "To Be Determined"
notation. Prior to the Last Call, those sections usually don't add
anything to the technical meat of the draft and aren't necessary.
(Unless of course, the draft is dealing with IANA issues throughout.)

During Last Calls, there are many people reviewing the drafts from many
angles, including the protocol point of view and the IANA point of view
and the internationalization point of view and ....

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

Ned Freed wrote:
> 
>> Actually I don't have so much of a problem with having such sections in
>> drafts at review time, but I hate to see them clutter up published
>> RFCs.
> 
> My position is the exact opposite. Full and complete review of drafts it of
> paramount importance and anything thqt interferes with that is unacceptable.
> And as I have pointed out, we have "running code" demonstrating that these
> things are at best distracting and at worst actively interfere with proper
> review.
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:35:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:16 GMT