Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsAWG status, and communicating with the chairs

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:33:15 -0400

We'll soon have minutes posted for the IETF 81 App Area Working Group
session (and App Area general session), and when they're up we'll
stick a pointer here.  Meanwhile, we reckon that there are seven
documents that this working group will soon take on.  So, confirming
this from the meeting, there was no objection to handling the
following documents in the working group:

The 'about' URI scheme
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme

A JSON Media Type for Describing the Structure and Meaning of JSON Documents
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zyp-json-schema

Best Current Practices for Handling of Malformed Messages
   [This has already been approved as a working group item:]
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail

Updating multipart/report
   http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis

Update to MIME regarding Charset Parameter Handling in Textual Media Types
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-mime-default-charset

Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xdash

Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-freed-media-type-regs
-------------------

Please post any objections to this list here.  Assuming none, we'll
start work on them as soon as we can.  The chairs need to decide which
of us is shepherding which document, and we'll present them to the
working group two or three at a time for concentrated discussion.
Discussion of all of them is welcome at any time, though, even if
we're not concentrating on it just then.

The chairs are subscribed to the mailing list, so there's no need to
copy the chairs on anything posted to the list.  But if you want to
communicate with the chairs off list, please include all of us by
using the tools alias, <[email-masked]>.  If you just
pick one or two of us to address, the one(s) who aren't included miss
that part of the conversation.  Even though I might be the only one
active in a conversation about a document I'm shepherding, it's useful
to have the other chairs kept up on the situation.

Similarly, you can address the Area Directors with
<[email-masked]>, and that also avoids errors or omissions
when you need to communicate with them off list.

We'll try to get the work divvied up and start active work on the
documents above within the next week or two.

Barry, appsawg chair

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:48:08 +0200

>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xdash

Why should this be a standalone document instead of having the ideas
there in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs> or
some other document that explains issues around extensibility within
a broader context than how a "X-" convention can be problematic?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:50:29 -0400

> we're not concentrating on it just then.

Oh, and I should have said:
Post objections to this discussion thread (leave the subject line intact).
But for discussions of a particular document, please start a new
thread, with the document name in the subject line.  Thanks.

Barry

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:36:35 -0700

> a broader context than how a "X-" convention can be problematic?

Because the people who need to read the document would be even less likely to do so if it were hidden there.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/