OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-transport message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: Feedback on the MSS draft - document layout issues

I worked these issues early on with some of the area director, and donald,
so i like you think we are ok... but we both know how procedures can get
us... however, i am one of those the glass is half full sort of guys....
thanks for the support... rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Hole [mailto:steve.hole@messagingdirect.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:03 PM
To: Rik Drummond
Cc: ebXML Transport
Subject: RE: Feedback on the MSS draft - document layout issues

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

> 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

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.


Steve Hole
Chief Technology Officer
MessagingDirect Ltd.
Phone: 780-424-4922

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC