draft-ietf-atompub-format-09.txt is ready for IESG review

[Paul Hoffman <phoffman@xxxxxxx>]

Greetings again. As the shepherd for this document, I would like to 
ask you to bring it to the IESG for final review. The WG has worked 
hard on this document after IETF Last Call, and made many changes 
that incorporate the WG rough consensus on issues that were brought 
up during and after IETF Last Call.

Some members of the Working Group remain unenthusiastic about some 
sections of the document, but we strongly believe that there is rough 
(or better) consensus in support of the document as a whole. For some 
of the parts with the most contention, there cannot be more than very 
rough consensus due to basic differences in the way people would 
design parts of the format, particularly given that we have many 
models in existence with the different flavors of RSS. For some parts 
of the document, there is contention about whether or not a 
particular item should or should not be in the Atom core versus being 
an extension. For some parts, there is contention whether there 
should be MUST/SHOULD/MAY leeway for content creators in the presence 
or absence of an element, or the semantic content of an element; we 
really pushed RFC 2119 around during the past few months.

The length of the mailing list archive is anomalous in the IETF, but 
so is the large number of regular active contributors and the breadth 
of parts of the document to which they contributed. This huge amount 
of input has caused the document to be more seriously reviewed, by 
more eyes, than a typical IETF document, but it has also caused more 
opportunity for disagreement along the way. Yet we still ended up 
with a format that meets the goals of the charter and the general 
agreement of most of the participants in the Working Group.

Please let us know how if the IESG has any concerns with the document 
during their review.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium