RE: Feedback on the MSS draft - document layout issues

[Steve Hole <steve.hole@messagingdirect.com>]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:56:49 -0500 Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net> 
wrote:

> we understand that this format is not usable in ietf, but it is much more
> readable. 

I agree entirely.   After I had already done the review work I saw that 
you were already making changes with that in mind.

> assuming that ned and others involved in the decision to let this
> be under two existing ietf workgroups, ediint and iotp, still stands, we
> understand we will have to make it fit the ietf format

The question of where it will be handled is an open question I think.   
Patrik and Ned believe that it should go somewhere, the question is where.

What is happening is that Don Eastlake, myself and a few others are 
attempting to summarize the XML work that is going on and identify the 
areas that clearly interact with or would be IETF standards track 
material.   Certainly the ebXML transport stuff fits in that category.

It is possible, with appropriate review to have things go into standards 
track in the IETF without a working group.   Clearly, the work that is 
being done here constitutes working group effort.   The issue will resolve
to two things:

1.  Peer review by intersecting technology experts within the IETF.   That
is the one of the reasons that I am paying attention.

2.  Handover of change control to IETF.   This sounds much more ominous 
than it is.   It simply means that the standards track process must be 
followed including the rules for promotion of specification on the 
standards track.

I don't see much of a problem with either.   That will have to be 
discussed with Ned and Patrik though.

I can say that the mandatory Content-Length header thing will be an issue 
though. That one thing in particular will run onto the rocks badly in peer
review and at IESG review.   *Many* bad experiences with Content-Length :-)

..... additionally,
> just to make.... sure you are responding on the version 0.21 draft correct?

Yes.   I saw that several things like the poor overworked charset header 
has already been dealt with :-).   Sorry about the redundancy -- I was 
doing it while on the road.

> thanks for the input. many of these comments we will have to be handled in
> tokyo...... best regards, rik

No problem.   You're doing good work.

Cheers.

---
Steve Hole
Chief Technology Officer
MessagingDirect Ltd.
<mailto:Steve.Hole@MessagingDirect.com>
Phone: 780-424-4922