Subject: Autodiscovery IPR and Process Concerns

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:33:02 -0500

At this URL

http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=545

James Snell lists three issues concerning documenting Autodiscovery on
a wiki with a Creative Commons license.

1.) IP Protections

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. One is that Mr. Snell
previously claimed that the document has "nothing to do with my day
job" [1]. The second is the complete absurdity of worrying about IP
protections on HTML tags that make an orange button appear.

That said, we should take this seriously.

Do James Snell or IBM need to disclose any IP related to RSS and Atom
autodiscovery?

2.) Structured Process

Mr. Snell points at RFC2026. This is an individual draft. There is
basically no consistent process. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying
to deceive you. This group already has some good examples of the way
RFC2026 is interpreted in practice. It would be very disingenuous to
claim it constitutes structure.

3.) Well, whatever. ;)

a little confused,

Robert Sayre

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19142.html

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:32:25 -0800

Robert Sayre wrote:
> [snip]
> [snip]

Good grief.

What I said was that my volunteering to take over the editing of the
autodiscovery draft had nothing to do with my day job;  that is, no one
at IBM asked me to work on autodiscovery nor am I aware of anything at
IBM that is dependent on its completion.  The only reason I volunteered
to serve as editor was because it was a loose end that hadn't been tied
up yet by the WG.

> Do James Snell or IBM need to disclose any IP related to RSS and Atom

There's absolutely nothing to disclose.  I just prefer to limit my
material contributions to various standards activities to organizations
whose IP policies have been vetted and approved by my employer's IP
lawyers or to posts on my personal weblog.  Your wiki qualifies as neither.

> claim it constitutes structure.

I had originally suggested that the draft be resubmitted as a WG draft.
 The Area Director and the WG chairs suggested that since autodiscovery
was not covered under the original charter it would be better to pursue
it as an individual submission.  I decided to do so only on the
condition that the same open process used for the development of the
Atom and APP specs would be followed -- meaning that there would be no
closed door decisions and that clear consensus had to develop via open
discussions on the WG mailing list before any change to the document was
made.

> a little confused,

Again, it would help if you quoted me accurately. My complete statement
can be found at [1].  All of the comments in my blog post were
specifically in regards to why I did not intend to participate in your
personal wiki documentation experiment. Good luck with it tho.

Now, to the WG as a whole: I really don't have any agenda for the
autodiscovery stuff other than to help foster it along.  If y'all think
there is a need for a I-D defining autodiscovery for Atom and APP, I've
got a few spare cycles to help with the editing.  If y'all think the
HTML5 stuff is sufficient, that's fine with me too.  If y'all want to go
some other direction with it, whatever.

- James

[1] http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=545

---

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:57:03 -0500

On 11/30/06, James M Snell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> There's absolutely nothing to disclose.

Are you sure about that?

> I just prefer to limit my

Interesting. What is the difference between your personal weblog and a
wiki, in IP terms?

Keep in mind that a wise man once said "Anyone who uses the term
'Intellectual Property' is confused or trying to confuse you."

> discussions on the WG mailing list before any change to the document was

This entire paragraph is plainly false. All of the decisions you refer
to were made without consulting the WG, the community, or what have
you.

>   If y'all think

Ah, this is what's called "innappropriately folksy". It's a common
rhetorical device used when the speaker wants to appear that they're
on the side of "the common man" or equivalent. The president of the
United States makes frequent use of this device.

Mission Accomplished!,

Robert Sayre

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:28:06 +0100

* Robert Sayre <[email-masked]> [2006-11-30 08:10]:
> Ah, this is what's called "innappropriately folksy". It's
> a common rhetorical device used when the speaker wants to
> appear that they're on the side of "the common man" or
> equivalent.

What rhetorical device is it to point out the rhetorical devices
used by other participants in a discussion?

> The president of the United States makes frequent use of this
> device.

What rhetorical device is it to use inappropriate and entirely
irrelevant political analogies in the hopes of derailing
a discussion?

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

---

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:00:59 -0500

> used by other participants in a discussion?

Gosh, Aristotle. I'm sure I don't know. Y'all let me know when y'all
figure it out.

- Bobby

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:12:50 +0100

James M Snell schrieb:
> ...
> ...

My 2 cents: it's nice that the HTML5 guys are looking at this, but they 
are so far away from being able to deliver something that I really would 
prefer that this is documented now. So, yes, I think you're on the right 
track.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Lachlan Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:57:39 +1100

> prefer that this is documented now. So, yes, I think you're on the right 

I just want to clear up this misconception about the status of the the 
HTML5 draft.  As a whole, it's true that it's going to take about 15 
years or so for the spec to reach the W3C recommendation status 
(assuming the work does move to the W3C, which is currently being worked 
out).  However, it's important to realise what the recommendation status 
actually means.

For a spec to become a REC, it requires two 100% complete and fully 
interoperable implementations, which is proven by each successfully 
passing literally thousands of test cases (20,000 tests for the whole 
spec would probably be a conservative estimate).  When you consider how 
long it takes to write that many test cases and how long it takes to 
implement each feature, you'll begin to understand why the time frame 
seems so long.

However, the WHATWG recognises and understands the problem with this: 
different parts of the specification are at different maturity levels. 
Some sections are already relatively stable and there are 
implementations that are already quite close to completion, and those 
features can be used today (e.g. <canvas>).  But other sections are 
still being actively worked on and changed regularly, or not even 
written yet.

The details are still being worked out, but the plan is to indicate the 
maturity level on a per-section basis.  Sections like the Link Types, 
which is relatively simple, isn't going to take long to become 
interoperably implemented.  In fact, Mozilla is already implementing the 
new autodiscovery features for Firefox 3.0, and it shouldn't take long 
for places like Technorati, Bloglines, etc. to implement follow.

Once a section is interoperably implemented, it's quite stable and 
unlikely to change significantly.  Any changes to such a section would 
most likely only be editorial in nature, particularly if the feature is 
already in widespread use (as autodiscovery already is today).

The point to all this is that you shouldn't place too much weight on the 
status of the specification as a whole.  You need to consider the 
stability and maturity level of each section individually.  Thus, while 
proceeding with Autodiscovery as an RFC may yield a fully complete and 
endorsed specification more quickly than HTML5, the end result and the 
time it takes for implementations to catch up is going to be the same. 
In fact, I believe leaving it in the hands on the WHATWG will in fact 
lead to a much higher quality specification because of the extensive 
experience that the editor has with writing them.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

---

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:42:42 -0500

On 11/30/06, Lachlan Hunt <[email-masked]> wrote:
> endorsed specification more quickly than HTML5

Actually, the process you describe is pretty much identical to the
IETF process in letter. For example, it took many years for RFC3986 to
appear, describing URIs at the level of Full Standard.

In practice, the WHAT-WG is more accountable, because there is a
documented process for resolving disputes that actually empowers the
group's participants. You'll find no such thing in the IETF,
especially with an individual draft.  The WHAT-WG is also much more
rigorous in testing and research than the IETF, so I have to agree
that there is little benefit to pursuing the Internet-Draft. Claims
that the WHAT-WG is too slow are overblown at best -- getting
something to "Proposed Standard" is not that interesting.

The (active!) wiki at http://feedautodiscovery.org is rapidly
eclipsing any other source on autodiscovery, and it can include
information that would not be permitted in an IETF or WHAT-WG
document, so it will always be more valuable and current.

-- 

Robert Sayre

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:30:53 -0800

The AD was kind enough to point out that this statement is likely a bit
too vague.  The intended meaning was that I have no involvement in, or
awareness of, IPR that is in any way relevant to the atom work.  And, as
far as I am aware, there's nothing I am required to disclose.

- James