Re: Revising Structured Fields: scope

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

+1, scope sounds good and I'd be impressed if this made it to IESG this
year - but we should try.
David

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 4:26 PM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think that this is an excellent scope to set.
>
> I will note that the RFC currently has no errata; I'm also not aware of
> any need to do editorial work, minor or otherwise. Work to address those
> should be very cheap.
>
> The end of the year seems aggressive, but if the assigned editors are
> quick, we can discuss a revision at IETF 115 and run WGLC shortly after.
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022, at 09:56, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > Discussion so far seems to indicate folks have a preference for
> > defining a new Date type in a revision of the Structured Fields
> > specification, rather than in a separate document or as part of the
> > Retrofit draft.
> >
> > If we're going to 'open up' the Structured Fields specification, we
> > should have a defined scope of work, to help assure we don't
> > unintentionally take on a bigger task than we're willing to.
> >
> > I'm proposing that the scope be limited to:
> >
> > - Adding a Date type (using the current text in the Retrofit draft[1]
> > as a starting point)
> > - Removing ABNF from the specification (as discussed, it's confusing
> > and current editorial style is NOT to use it[2])
> > - Addressing technical issues that are or could qualify as errata
> > (e.g., minor algorithm clarifications)
> > - Minor and purely editorial work (e.g., improving wording,
> > explanations, correcting typos if found)
> >
> > If we limit it in this way, I'm reasonably confident we can ship the
> > spec to the IESG in a reasonable timeframe -- conceivably before the
> > end of the year.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > 1.
> > <
> https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit.html#appendix-A
> >
> > 2. <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide#structured-fields>
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>