Subject: PaceAutoDisco - separate draft?

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:34:20 -0700

For those who haven't seen MarkP's write-up at 
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-pilgrim-atom-autodiscovery-02.html, 
go have a look; I'd forgotten how long it is, but it doesn't seem 
padded.  Paul tells me that there's no process barrier to us adopting 
it as a WG draft.  So here are the questions; I think a few of them 
have easy-to-reach consensus positions, which I've proposed in square 
brackets:

1. Do we as a WG do anything about feed discovery? [Yes]

2. Do we basically agree with the content of Mark's draft? [Yes]

3. Do we try to roll Mark's material into one of our existing drafts, 
or do we adopt it as a separate committee draft? [Separate draft, it's 
too long to roll in].

(Er Mark, you OK with being editor?)

3. Do we need to point to the autodiscovery draft from either/both of 
the protocol and format drafts?  [Yes and No, i.e. yes from the 
protocol, no from the format].

  -Tim

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:43:59 +0200

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:34:20 -0700, Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 3. Do we try to roll Mark's material into one of our existing drafts, or  
> do we adopt it as a separate committee draft? [Separate draft, it's too  
> long to roll in].

The biggest problem with the draft isn't imho that it's too long, but that  
it doesn't fit naturally anywhere in the current format or protocol  
specifications. This was brought to my attention by Arve Bersvendsen, and  
I agree with him in that Atom would be served by having yet another  
specification directed towards «Introspection and Discovery-services».

Mark's autodiscovery document would fit nicely into such a specification,  
and it would be extendible when other related mechanisms needs to be  
specified somewhere. Squeezing everything into the format or protocol  
specification isn't the best solution, I think.

> protocol, no from the format].

I would hope that both the format and protocol specifications could point  
to the «Introspection and Discovery-services» specification, and vice  
versa. They are all tightly related.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Mark Pilgrim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:43:39 -0400

> (Er Mark, you OK with being editor?)

Yes.  Or I'm willing to have it rolled into the format spec with me as
co-editor.

I have also published a corresponding conformance test suite [1],
which I believe is still fully functional despite a recent server
upheaval.  What does the IETF do with such things?  Anything?

[1] http://diveintomark.org/tests/client/autodiscovery/

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark