Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

On 12/14/2014 07:05 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 12/08/2014 05:29 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Larry, are you saying you want to get this approved as Informational,
>> or that plus IETF Consensus?
>
> I've taken the liberty of adapting Larry's blog post to RFC format.  In
> the process, I've lightly updated and added to it.  Still, the bulk of
> the content remains Larry's, so the bulk of the credit goes to him.  As
> to any errors I've introduced in the process (which is quite likely as
> I'm not familiar with the template or relevant practices), the blame
> goes to me.
>
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.html
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.txt
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.xml
>
> For those inclined to do so, feel free to send pull requests or create
> issues on the following:
>
> https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/url-problem-statement.xml
>
> Comments via email are also fine.
>
> As to Mark's question, I'm inclined to ask for "plus IETF Consensus".
> That being said, I've been unable to find what this precisely entails.
> If asking for this means that it might get pushback, I'm fine with that;
> the one thing I would not be fine with is it stalling.

I'm still looking for advice on how to get this approved as 
Informational plus IETF Consensus.

Meanwhile, this is now published:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ruby-url-problem-00

I have mentioned it on apps-discuss:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13499.html

Which to date has gotten the following feedback:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13500.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13502.html

There seem to be formatting errors that I have inquired about:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xml2rfc/current/msg04841.html

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 11:34:54 UTC