Re: Features Draft

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

RFC# yes. The namespace is likely to stay as is regardless of how it
moves forward.

- James

Joe Cheng wrote:
> Would Experimental get us a real namespace and RFC number?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M Snell
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:22 AM
> To: atom-protocol
> Subject: Features Draft
> 
> 
> After reviewing the recent discussions around the features draft, Lisa
> has communicated to me a concern that it may not be possible to properly
> determine consensus to publish the draft as a Proposed-Standard with the
> set of features currently defined in the spec without either chartering
> a new WG or rechartering the existing WG.  The alternative to that would
> be publishing the spec as either Informational or Experimental.
> 
> Experimental is definitely a strong option that would give implementors
> the opportunity to gain experience with the spec.  I would prefer
> Standards Track, of course, but there's obviously no reason to rush it
> down that path and implementors can still benefit from having an
> Experimental RFC.
> 
> Alternatively, we could just keep it as an I-D for now and just see
> where things go.
> 
> So... what do y'all think should happen?
> 
> - James
>