W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Content-Disposition next steps

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:29:15 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Message-Id: <E5DFC20B-B441-4D01-8E40-046F233F9C8A@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 09/11/2010, at 7:47 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> Given that we currently have at least two vendors (probably more, I'm just going by public information) working on implementing the draft now (at least partly triggered by us going to WGLC), and it's possible we'll get feedback from them, I'm inclined to pause for a *small* number of weeks, to see if we can learn anything else.
> 
> Not sure.
> 
> We will have to produce a new draft, request publication and go to AD review before we get to IETF LC anyway.
> 
> What's wrong with processing additional feedback during IETF LC?

Because this is WGLC, and we've heard some browser vendors -- who, as much as anyone, are members of this WG -- express that they'd like to see some more text in.

This draft is also a bit of a special case, in that it didn't receive much discussion in the WG before going to LC. That at least in part speaks to the quality of the work you've done, but I want to make sure we treat feedback appropriately before progressing.


>> During that time, Adam can come up with a proposal for error handling, which we'll consider at the end of that period.
>> 
>> Adam, you can do that either openly on the mailing list, or as a design team (i.e., work with other interested parties separately and bring a proposal forward when you think you're ready). I'd encourage you to do it openly on the list, to get constructive feedback from others as you go (thereby increasing your chances of delivering something people will accept). However, if Adam does this, I'd ask people not to question *why* it's being done.
>> 
>> If it's done in time, and if we gather consensus on it, it can go into C-D as an optional appendix. If it's not ready in time, it can be published (by the WG or separately) on its own. Likewise, if the WG doesn't gain consensus on it, it can be published individually (in the IETF or elsewhere).
>> 
>> Right now, I'm thinking three weeks -- November 30th (coincidentally, my birthday). This will give us time to re-publish, gain consensus (or not) and go to IETF Last Call by the end of the year.
> 
> I have my doubts that we will go to IETF LC this year if we do not request publication much earlier.

Perhaps. Do you have reason to believe a few weeks is going to make a difference?


> Also, I'm planning to revise RFC 5987 and C-D for publication as Draft Standards as soon as possible (the interop research has been done already, and sufficient implementations *are* there). Maybe it would make sense to address the error handling discussion in that revision.

Ack.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 03:29:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT