W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Updated status on IETF draft for Accept-Post

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:52:26 -0700
Message-ID: <5445760A.2090803@berkeley.edu>
To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
CC: LDP WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, LDP <public-ldp@w3.org>
hello steve.

On 2014-10-20, 11:19 , Steve Speicher wrote:
> In today's WG call, we decided [1] that we've had enough impl feedback
> on Accept-Post [2][3] (all impls have done it so far) [4] and we are
> removing the "feature at risk" label, though need to know how best to
> reference it.

just rehashing my previous opinion that it would be better to have it as 
a standalone reference that people can easily reference and use outside 
of the context of LDP (that was the idea behind the draft).

but technically speaking, it is fine to go either way: push the I-D 
forward and reference it, or include the draft's text in LDP and thus 
make Accept-Post defined by LDP. in this case LDP should contain an 
"IANA Considerations" section like 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-accept-post-03#section-4 (this is 
the template that IANA needs to register the header field).

> What is the possibility for advancing [3] beyond current status of
> Internet-Draft?  We are trying to figure out if we'd need to "copy in"
> the text within the LDP spec or if we could reference the IETF spec.

my last attempts to push things on the IETF side were not as successful 
as i was hoping for. we need to have implementers speak up in terms of

- adding their implementations to 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-accept-post-03#section-6 . the 
XML source at 
(lines 92-116) contains a template that makes that pretty easy.

- making themselves heard on apps-discuss when we're asking to push this 
forward. IETF is only driven by people participation, so we need this as 
a proof that Accept-Post is in fact useful and used, and has been 

was my last attempt to push this within IETF's apps-discuss, and i think 
the main problem was participation in that discussion from the LDP side 
of things. if that's likely to change, we can publish a -04 with more 
implementation status reports, and then i'd be more than happy to push 
for IETF action again.

if, on the other hand, the LDP group decides that we don't want this to 
be a standalone spec, then we can also withdraw the draft and copy the 
contents back into the LDP spec.

thanks and cheers,


erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Monday, 20 October 2014 20:52:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:12 UTC