Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GTEEb-0003fd-DO; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:00:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GTEEa-0003dy-7E for apps-review@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:00:40 -0400 Received: from heisenberg.zen.co.uk ([212.23.3.141]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GTEEY-00009X-Nz for apps-review@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:00:40 -0400 Received: from [217.155.137.60] (helo=turner.dave.cridland.net) by heisenberg.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GTEEX-0001E8-Kk for apps-review@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:00:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by turner.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F8F498005 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:04:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from turner.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turner.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20113-10 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:04:07 +0100 (BST) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:4bd0:2029:0:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by turner.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC82498004 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:04:07 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:00:26 +0100 Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Usenet spec in IETF last call References: <0D70B342-8594-4859-8F61-268F2CAEE74F@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <0D70B342-8594-4859-8F61-268F2CAEE74F@osafoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <26910.1159520427.108970@peirce.dave.cridland.net> From: Dave Cridland To: Applications Review List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at dave.cridland.net X-Originating-Heisenberg-IP: [217.155.137.60] X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org On Fri Sep 29 00:07:05 2006, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > I wasn't going to send this around to Apps-review, as it's a > revision and not in "architectural" development stage. However, > already in last call, Mark Crispin has raised questions about both > supersetting and subsetting RFC2822. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-10.txt > > Anybody agree/disagree with those concerns? I sympathize with them, certainly, but it appears that the additional restrictions and altered definitions applied to USENET message are, essentially, a regrettable product of the deployed software. In other words, this is not an updated specification for people to implement, this is an updated documentation describing a largely unwritten specification - warts and all. To try and enforce full RFC2822 syntax would be trying to close the barn door after the horse has not only bolted, but was never even in the stable in the first place. However, that said, there are a couple of things which concern me. While I understand the issues surrounding the redefinitions, the language used to require agents to accept "full RFC2822" syntax is often quite weak. Consider the requirement for a SP after header field names, for example - I appreciate that agents MUST generate at least one space, but I feel that for future convergence, it would be useful to also specify that they MUST accept no SP. This document merely uses MAY. This is repeated in several areas. I realize there is a desire to avoid effectively declaring existing implementations non-conformant, but by weakening the ability for USEFOR and RFC2822 to converge, it renders this document somewhat more of a BCP than a PS. To torture a metaphor further, it's akin to closing the barn door before the horse has even gone into the stable. I think it would benefit USENET generally to specify that agents SHOULD accept full RFC2822 syntax, even if they MUST generate restricted syntax in order to interoperate. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@jabber.org - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade _______________________________________________ APPS-REVIEW mailing list APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GT4yJ-0007yG-QS; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:07:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GT4yJ-0007tr-2e for APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:07:15 -0400 Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GT4yH-0002x2-Q0 for APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:07:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2015414231D for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32325-09 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (c-69-181-78-47.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [69.181.78.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF56C14231C for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <0D70B342-8594-4859-8F61-268F2CAEE74F@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:07:05 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Usenet spec in IETF last call X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org I wasn't going to send this around to Apps-review, as it's a revision and not in "architectural" development stage. However, already in last call, Mark Crispin has raised questions about both supersetting and subsetting RFC2822. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-10.txt Anybody agree/disagree with those concerns? thx, Lisa _______________________________________________ APPS-REVIEW mailing list APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNwYL-0007dg-5I; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:07:13 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNwYK-0007da-3h for APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:07:12 -0400 Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNwYI-0002JP-LH for APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:07:12 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-69-181-78-47.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [69.181.78.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13F214228C for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) To: APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org Message-Id: References: From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:06:59 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c83ccb5cc10e751496398f1233ca9c3a Cc: Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Fwd: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1136862347==" Errors-To: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org --===============1136862347== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10--435007110 --Apple-Mail-10--435007110 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed I'd like to get a review of this document, it's an important one with an all new standard for blog publishing, based on HTTP. I suggested the chairs request an APPS-review before WGLC but obviously it's too late for that timing to work out. thanks! Lisa Begin forwarded message: > From: Paul Hoffman > Date: September 14, 2006 10:13:13 AM PDT > To: Atom WG , atom-protocol@imc.org > Cc: Tim Bray > Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol > > > With the publication of draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-10.txt, we are > ready for WG Last Call. This is a two-week period where people look > intently at the document and comment on it. New Paces are still > allowed, and are encouraged if you are proposing anything more than > a few sentences worth of change. > At the end of the Last Call, we grind out one last revision, and > the WG passes it on to our fearless AD to take it to the IETF as a > whole. > > The WG Last Call will close September 26. > > Please remember to make your subject lines meaningful when you > start threads, and when you change the topic. Thanks! > --Apple-Mail-10--435007110 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'd like to get a review of this = document, it's an important one with an all new standard for blog = publishing, based on HTTP.=A0 I suggested the chairs request an = APPS-review before WGLC but obviously it's too late for that timing to = work out.

thanks!
Lisa

Begin forwarded message:

From: = Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Date: = September 14, 2006 10:13:13 AM PDT
To: Atom WG = <atom-syntax@imc.org>, = atom-protocol@imc.org
Cc: Tim Bray = <tbray@textuality.com>
Subject: WG Last Call for = draft-ietf-atompub-protocol


With the publication of = draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-10.txt, we are ready for WG Last Call. This = is a two-week period where people look intently at the document and = comment on it.=A0 New Paces = are still allowed, and are encouraged if you are proposing anything more = than a few sentences worth of change. =A0
At the = end of the Last Call, we grind out one last revision, and the WG passes = it on to our fearless AD to take it to the IETF as a whole.

The WG = Last Call will close September 26.

Please remember to make your = subject lines meaningful when you start threads, and when you change the = topic. Thanks!

=

= --Apple-Mail-10--435007110-- --===============1136862347== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ APPS-REVIEW mailing list APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review --===============1136862347==-- Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKbOx-00035M-HY; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:55:43 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKbOw-00035G-97 for apps-review@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:55:42 -0400 Received: from homer.w3.org ([128.30.52.30]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKbOu-0007wN-UY for apps-review@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:55:42 -0400 Received: from raktajino.does-not-exist.org (homer.w3.org [128.30.52.30]) by homer.w3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2124F140; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roessler by raktajino.does-not-exist.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GKbOr-000404-Ct; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:55:37 +0200 Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:55:37 +0200 From: Thomas Roessler To: Eric Burger Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt Message-ID: <20060905135537.GI12632@raktajino.does-not-exist.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eric Burger , apps-review@ietf.org References: <7B47BEC7-AFF3-4F0C-A27C-EED212453162@osafoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-09-01) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b132cb3ed2d4be2017585bf6859e1ede Cc: apps-review@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org Some notes from a very quick read (you'll want to complement this with another review): - What's the relationship between licensing information contained in a license-type link and licensing information contained in an atom:rights element? The example under 2.1 in the I-D suggests that the atom:rights is expected to reflect the license that is identified in the link element. However, there seems to be no machine-readable way to express that connection. Also, there can be multiple license links, but only one rights element. - An atom:rights element on a feed sets the default for the atom:rights elements on entries; a license link on a feed, however, is expected to apply to the metadata and NOT to the entries. Why the difference in inheritance rules and semantics? - It's probably worth noting that there are jurisdictions in which databases enjoy sui generis legal protection (e.g., the EU). In such jurisdictions, it might be reasonable to have license information that refers to the collection, not just to its metadata. - The following statement: Entry content might include or reference material from other sources. Licenses associated with an entry MUST NOT be assumed to cover such material. Implementations cannot necessarily trust that publishers have the right to license material claimed to be covered by any associated license. Care should be taken when making decisions based on the referenced license. ... takes all of the value out of this scheme. The very point of annotating content (even aggregate content) with a license is that this license be trusted. Summary: The relationship to atom:rigts should be cleaned up. The questions above about what precisely a license applies to probably points at a problem in terms of expressivity of the linking scheme -- an argument could be made that there should be machine-readable ways to express what precisely a license link is supposed to apply to. Something like rel={content-license, dataset-license, entry-default-license}? Overall, this document looks like it is in dire need of serious review from legal experts -- e.g., from the Creative Commons community. I'll point some contacts in that general area at the ongoing last call. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C On 2006-09-01 19:47:57 -0400, Eric Burger wrote: > From: Eric Burger > To: apps-review@ietf.org > Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:47:57 -0400 > Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for > draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > List-Id: Applications Review List > X-Spam-Level: > > Normally I'd pull from the pool of Applications Area experts. However, I > haven't gotten the round-robin data base or the other accoutrements of the > review process on line. There is a deadline looming, so it would be good to > just get this one done. > > Please respond to me directly if you can do the review. > > Document: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > > IETF LC ends: 11-Sep-2006 > > -- > - Eric > > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Lisa Dusseault > Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:48:12 -0400 > To: "Burger, Eric" > Cc: Ted Hardie , James M Snell > Conversation: Expert review requested for > draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > Subject: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > > Hi Eric, > > Can you assign an expert Apps reviewer for this draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > > It's in IETF Last Call, so end of that last call would be the > suggested deadline (Sept 11). > > Thanks! > > Lisa > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > > _______________________________________________ > APPS-REVIEW mailing list > APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review > > _______________________________________________ APPS-REVIEW mailing list APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKars-0000pg-KI; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:21:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKQ6v-0006DR-Rv for apps-review@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:52:21 -0400 Received: from outbound.cantata.com ([208.236.123.102]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKQ6t-0007Dg-K5 for apps-review@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:52:21 -0400 Received: from ma02exchtmp01.Cantata.com ([10.128.18.41]) by outbound.Cantata.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:52:26 -0400 Received: from 10.128.41.2 ([10.128.41.2]) by ma02exchtmp01.Cantata.com ([10.128.18.41]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 01:52:25 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:47:57 -0400 From: Eric Burger To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt Thread-Index: AcbDAe6WRTB72xsfSRSSFYgtoa2+MwLHx4vD In-Reply-To: <7B47BEC7-AFF3-4F0C-A27C-EED212453162@osafoundation.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2006 01:52:26.0115 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFF0F530:01C6D08D] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:21:31 -0400 Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org Normally I'd pull from the pool of Applications Area experts. However, I haven't gotten the round-robin data base or the other accoutrements of the review process on line. There is a deadline looming, so it would be good to just get this one done. Please respond to me directly if you can do the review. Document: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt IETF LC ends: 11-Sep-2006 -- - Eric ------ Forwarded Message From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:48:12 -0400 To: "Burger, Eric" Cc: Ted Hardie , James M Snell Conversation: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt Subject: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt Hi Eric, Can you assign an expert Apps reviewer for this draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt It's in IETF Last Call, so end of that last call would be the suggested deadline (Sept 11). Thanks! Lisa ------ End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ APPS-REVIEW mailing list APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review