Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft iteration frequency

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 17 June 2010 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B203A67F5 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWkBwiutJgSS for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCDE3A67F3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.5.Alpha0/8.14.5.Alpha0) with ESMTP id o5HBPugx022209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1276773967; x=1276860367; bh=qeIdNaHZznYmnDkI4qLh3KQ286ztP/Esr2MzOrB0kLg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=R++aR9fFxsIUC/0xdYiS3eA46M3UZ9JsBCXMgW49B47d2wFcUVIw1I6Fu/OeTvEiX jrniT1dokC+I7ncaOlczV36dLhjFys1w6OmNxVCe8VtTUrb/tXTvq/0TKyeC9dXpf2 OLiP0oCsHcNCygQQ8qNTSU8A26LxD/NUILi+gYvA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1276773967; x=1276860367; bh=qeIdNaHZznYmnDkI4qLh3KQ286ztP/Esr2MzOrB0kLg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=VCrLuv12TE1l4q4f0nwQopoeX6u99MUyGFj37HbW1FF0BITJRfVTnpKAo+eyh6Prk DJfakyRUY0bzFN/fLdVOshtQg36dJ3lob3qwHPGzLte7kJ1oz7hoeBxuBdWqnx5+HB JhBI0p5r5P4DON6q6pTEyQR1TsiLdo7nkaIQ7VIQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=gfgvnEyoUMKMF8pnb7Qj7EHWef6Qm4xjOts4SV66h1bFK9cTanJI1qo7cPkTDwcoP vtQ5GKaqPiY6+3SfsoTUdVsjV7ig58fp/jR9n+S6yPPcVQt7W5azCilQhLdxEbQciWd V0ABhaai+XPJz4fSFxTUfVdmprXXrPCN7im5Gr4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100617041400.0a261ff8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:21:49 -0700
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EBB66F1@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX 1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EBB66F1@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft iteration frequency
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:26:11 -0000

Hi Eran,
At 10:14 14-06-10, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>I am now making daily changes to the draft. I check these changes in 
>daily (sometimes more) to my github account [1] but I'm not clear 
>how often do people here wants me to submit those as I-D revisions. 
>Frequent submission makes it harder for people to read and provide 
>feedback because there always seems to be a newer draft, but also 
>keeps the discussion focused on IETF documents, not personal copies elsewhere.

There is author in another WG that was submitting frequent 
revisions.  It's not a good idea for the reasons you outlined 
above.  I suggest that you use your best judgement to determine when 
the changes are significant enough to submit a new revision of the I-D.

If you look at an I-D as a specification which will be implemented, 
it would be better to avoid frequent iterations.

Regards,
-sm