[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Status of draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-15.txt
At 8:27 PM -0700 6/13/07, James M Snell wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Cullen Jennings had questions about the namespace we chose. I described
why we were using PURLs temporarily and a W3C-minted http: URL at the end.
###TODO: Editors put in the new namespace, http://www.w3.org/2007/app,
that has been minted by the W3C for us.
Just to confirm... this will be the namespace used in the RFC? Would it
be safe for implementors to start coding support for this namespace URI.
Yes and yes.
At 7:11 AM +0200 6/14/07, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
But is there a good reason not to direct people to the newer TLS
Yes: TLS 1.2 will be done within a year and pointing people to TLS
1.0 and 1.1, but not 1.2, makes it seem like maybe they shouldn't do
1.2. The TLS community is very active on 1.2, and I would expect lots
of instant adoption in the toolkits when it is done.
At 9:17 AM +0200 6/14/07, Julian Reschke wrote:
What about the problem in the description of the Slug header, see
Yes, that should be included in the next draft. It is a clarification
(and thus doesn't need to go back to the IESG), and there was WG
At 8:54 AM -0400 6/14/07, Joe Gregorio wrote:
Just to clarify, we are producing a -16 draft with these changes?
Yes, definitely. However, please hold off on pushing that out until
we have agreement from Sam about his desired changes.