Subject: Autodiscovery discussion & editorship

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 20:29:26 -0700

<co-chair-mode>

Given the volume of debate, it's obvious there may be more work to do 
here.  Paul and I have asked Phil Ringnalda to co-edit the 
autodiscovery spec, and he's accepted.  Between Mark and Phil we should 
have no trouble getting the editing done.  Paul, is there any reason 
Mark or Phil shouldn't submit the most recent autodiscovery-01 as a 
committee draft?

The discussion in recent days has been lively but unstructured.  If I 
were forced to make a consensus call right now, I'm pretty sure I 
wouldn't be able to pick out any one spec change that I could say 
clearly has consensus.  So argue as much as you want, but if you really 
want a specific change to the draft, I think you need to draw up a Pace 
with specific change suggestions and see if you can use that to focus 
the discussion and gather support.

If possible, I'd like us to focus on getting the format draft done just 
now; we promise to have a focused discussion on autodisco once format 
is put to bed.   -Tim

</co-chair-mode>

---

From: Mark Pilgrim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:43:39 -0500

On 5/5/05, Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:
> clearly has consensus.

The one suggestion I did see, which should be acted on immediately, is
to update the references section to point to the newest versions of
the XML and URI specs (and associated link changes throughout the
text).

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:47:12 -0700

At 8:29 PM -0700 5/5/05, Tim Bray wrote:
>Paul, is there any reason Mark or Phil shouldn't submit the most 
>recent autodiscovery-01 as a committee draft?

No reason at all. We can poke at it, regardless of the -nn.txt numbering.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium