Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

"Ben Wilson" <ben@digicert.com> Thu, 05 June 2014 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@digicert.com>
X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137D51A016E for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CT10s0t6srI5 for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digicert.com (mail.digicert.com [64.78.193.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784511A01CF for <wpkops@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BWILSONL1 (unknown [67.137.52.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.digicert.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 039327FA0DC; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:22:26 -0600 (MDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=digicert.com; s=mail; t=1401978147; bh=3FfpppTQ2uHzF5FuI+tX2NalnPZ5WP8jjnLBZMeUrHM=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=UA4WxoZgNy/W7bShR53Y/uhsPjqjBjVVHCwDXB1hLeVdNWwEkvlKZOZvGcNlkKafW U/LAWM6RR9dEHUFI05toUiE2iGtbGKoRT6GhZwWPGcjWqVyt789uNVxK1kn+wlTt/7 mH4XGiOu2OeKTXcT7Pb+bv3L1Ep18mVJznU8p1+w=
From: Ben Wilson <ben@digicert.com>
To: 'Tim Moses' <tim.moses@entrust.com>, 'Gervase Markham' <gerv@mozilla.org>
References: <001901cf6ec2$376461b0$a62d2510$@digicert.com> <059501cf79f0$69ba9060$3d2fb120$@digicert.com> <538F795F.3020008@mozilla.org> <5B68A271B9C97046963CB6A5B8D6F62CE819DE1D@SOTTEXCH11.corp.ad.entrust.com> <53907A4C.7070307@mozilla.org> <5B68A271B9C97046963CB6A5B8D6F62CE819E1A5@SOTTEXCH11.corp.ad.entrust.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B68A271B9C97046963CB6A5B8D6F62CE819E1A5@SOTTEXCH11.corp.ad.entrust.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 08:22:22 -0600
Message-ID: <013101cf80c9$91fdb9a0$b5f92ce0$@digicert.com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-index: AQHAGq9YUAUY845vOYYDLXX689oZPAIbE3NYATl0SmABw3ilUgIjEPfBArB9/m+bMgEiUA==
Content-Language: en-us
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012C_01CF8097.45DAADD0"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpkops/0UTBxRNl_GAeJvE0azG9g_4qi_Y
Cc: wpkops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft
X-BeenThere: wpkops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <wpkops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wpkops>, <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wpkops/>
List-Post: <mailto:wpkops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops>, <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:23:02 -0000

Thanks.  I'll take a look and create another draft.

-----Original Message-----
From: wpkops [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Moses
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 8:19 AM
To: Gervase Markham
Cc: wpkops@ietf.org; ben@digicert.com
Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

Gerv:  You have to look for that in the charter ...

http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/wpkops/charter/

The significance of WG Draft is that it identifies the single document (or
sequence of documents) of the declared scope on which the group will focus
its efforts.  It is not expected that the first WG Draft will be complete or
internally consistent.

It is often stated that the experts in the community will not engage until a
document achieves WG Draft status.  So, we are hoping for, and expecting, a
more vigorous debate once the document advances to WG Draft status.

All the best.  Tim.


-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv@mozilla.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 10:10 AM
To: Tim Moses; ben@digicert.com
Cc: wpkops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

On 05/06/14 14:37, Tim Moses wrote:
> Hi Ben.  We want to move this document to WG draft status.  Do you 
> want to address Gerv's comments before we hold a ballot?  I suggest we 
> do that.

Again, apologies for lack of knowledge of the process, but: the doc is full
of "to be expanded", "we plan to..." etc. So there will be lots of further
change. Is that what "Draft" means?

My two examples were two of many; they were actually given to try and get
clarity on the purpose and goals of the document. If that's written up
somewhere, do point me to it. :-)

Gerv
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
wpkops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops