RE: Fwd: Last Call: XML Media Types to Proposed Standard

[Dan Kohn <[e-mail]>]

Ned, as you are the Area Director reviewing this spec, we (the co-authors)
will defer to your judgement on the need to restart the Last Call period.

For obvious reasons, we would rather skip the extra month necessary to do
so.  I will also note that Section 6.1.2 of RFC 2026 doesn't set any
specific guidelines for what level of change does or does not require a
restart of Last Call.  Given that the suggested change does not affect the
normal operation of the protocol (where external parsed entities are
supposed to use their own MIME type), and that the issue comes down to how
deal with any existing implementations that (could possibly) differ from the
new spec, I would suggest that it is not a significant change.  We don't
actually have any examples from the wild of software or messages that would
even be affected by this change.  Again, however, we defer to your judgement
as to whether any changes to requirements language mandates a Last Call
restart.

In either event, we'll be submitting the -08 draft tomorrow.

		- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:[e-mail]>
<http://www.dankohn.com>  <tel:[phone]>

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, 2000-09-07 08:56
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Fwd: Last Call: XML Media Types to Proposed Standard


> In the IETF-XML-MIME ML, Larry Masinter made proposed to slightly
> revise the latest draft (draft-murata-xml-07.txt).  Dave Peterson
> agreed.

> >    For backward compatibility, application/xml and text/xml MAY,
> >    but SHOULD NOT, also be used for "external parsed entities",
> >    "external DTD subsets", and "external parameter entities".

> > I don't think "MAY but SHOULD NOT" is a valid state in RFC 2119
> > terminology, or called for. How about:

> >   application/xml and text/xml MUST NOT be used for "external parsed
> >   entities", "external DTD subsets", and "external parameter entities".
> >   Note that RFC 2376 (obsoleted) allowed this usage, although
> >   in practice it is likely to be rare.

> I spoke with my co-authors: Dan Kohn and Simon St. Laurent.  We
> have agreed to accept the proposed change.

Sounds fine to me. Please submit an updated version of the draft.
Unfortunately, given that this is a change to requirements language I think
we'll have to restart the last call, so the sooner the better on this.

				Ned