IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents

Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net> Fri, 07 September 2007 20:00 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITk0g-0005tM-1E; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:00:58 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ITk0f-0005tD-59 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:00:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITk0e-0005t3-Rk for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:00:56 -0400
Received: from gateout01.mbox.net ([165.212.64.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITk0d-0002OQ-GU for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:00:56 -0400
Received: from gateout01.mbox.net (gateout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.21]) by gateout01.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1228515D1; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 20:00:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.34P) with ESMTP id XID658Ligua10083Xo1; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:00:52 -0000
X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN ldusseault@commerce.net GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID658Ligua10083Xo1
Received: from [10.1.4.102] ([157.22.41.20]) by GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:00:51 -0600
In-Reply-To: <46E16EF7.5060907@gmail.com>
References: <76D1FAA9-6605-4D54-9DCC-068BC8242420@commerce.net> <46E16EF7.5060907@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-434654064
Message-Id: <4B7EAB5B-B6A5-44FE-AE66-4B302B70C4B1@commerce.net>
From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>
Subject: Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:00:51 -0700
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2007 20:00:51.0323 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA7B24B0:01C7F189]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:32 AM, James M Snell wrote:

> Having written several IS drafts, one of which reached Proposed  
> Standard
> status and another Experimental RFC, and another that I believe might
> have helped to motivate this particular note from you,...


Yes, but this wasn't the only one!  Efforts by Dave Crocker and John  
Klensin are also prompting this line of questioning.  But Paul's  
request added to yours to publish the Atom feature advertisement spec  
did prompt finishing the email to send it.

I asked Paul if he'd be document shepherd for that spec, by the way,  
to do the work of determining what consensus was for which features  
to include, to write the doc shepherd's overview & help the process  
along.  I'm not sure he thought that was inappropriate or just not  
something he had the time to do, but he declined.

thanks,
Lisa

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email