Subject: [apps-discuss] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:37:27 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not making this a DISCUSS because I think I've raised a similar issue
before (with this same AD and doc shepherd, no less, I think) and lost
the argument, but I don't get why this document is informational. It
specifies a parameter syntax for fragment identifiers. If one
implementation follows the syntax specified here and another
implementation uses some other syntax defined somewhere else, how is this
spec helping the two implementations interoperate?

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:24:40 -0400

> before (with this same AD and doc shepherd, no less, I think)

Hi!

> and lost

In this case, it's Informational because it's registering things that
are not controlled by IETF standards, following our general rule that
having media types that are in use be registered is better than not.
We can say anything we like with regard to markdown and its variants,
but people will do what they like and not accept that we've declared a
"standard".  Our sense here is that the markdown "community", such as
there is one, doesn't want us to try to set standards here.

Instead, we're documenting what's in use and what interoperates, and
putting it in the IANA registry.  I think (and the working group
thinks) that's Informational.

I'm certainly happy to have further discussion about that, though, and
perhaps be convinced otherwise.

Barry

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:19:35 -0700

> thinks) that's Informational.

Yes. +1.

Sean