From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 16 11:45:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637883A6802 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:45:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Os-FlWJBx5Dp for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7029F28C12A for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B20904038E for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:45:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AD8BF62.1080401@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:45:54 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-review@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] team update X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:45:52 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At the Stockholm meeting, Eric Burger asked me if I could take over leadership of the apps-review team from him. Because Lisa and Alexey were so convincing, I agreed. Here's what I've been up to: 1. Moved our web page to http://www.apps.ietf.org/node/13 2. Currently recruiting all AppsArea WG chairs to join the team so that we have a larger team roster and thus a smaller load on each member Thanks to Marc Blanchet, Eliot Lear, Xiadong Lee, Enrico Marocco, and Aaron Stone for answering the call for help. Expect more team members soon. Next, I'll start sending out requests to review a few documents in our queue, first among them: draft-bryan-metalink draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions If you would like to step forward to review one of those I-Ds, please let me know, otherwise I will start pinging people individually. And of course if you have suggestions for ways to improve the apps-review team (e.g., a template for reviews, a page for tracking review assignments, etc.), please do send them along. Thanks! Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrYv2IACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyKbgCg0bJgZYr6FR0tSQvdL0R9FGfn W5UAoLzZI15JFGnj98FL1YASBV4zJag7 =yPlI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Oct 21 14:54:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C974228C100 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:54:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mKE+uS9wQcG7 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F187728C0FE for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBFAB4011B for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:54:56 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4ADF832F.2000201@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:54:55 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-review@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] template X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:54:48 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've made a brief template for use in our reviews: http://www.apps.ietf.org/node/14 Feedback is welcome. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrfgy8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyy0ACffX7LGL+XYl2cCztculw3Fe1X iuoAniPdfMWHJaxVrZL1sQPdb4AElpev =rdhU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From aaron@serendipity.cx Wed Oct 21 15:40:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828623A6816 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EH0TndcTYyXX for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.cx [75.101.96.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A593A67B1 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.30.2.5] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69333C14; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:44:06 -0700 (PDT) References: <4ADF832F.2000201@stpeter.im> Message-Id: <32BE37BF-DBDE-49DF-9C55-4FB3431BAE2A@serendipity.cx> From: Aaron Stone To: Peter Saint-Andre In-Reply-To: <4ADF832F.2000201@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7C144) Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7C144) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:40:05 -0700 Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] template X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:40:11 -0000 Meta review: is it possible to get descriptive uris? On Oct 21, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I've made a brief template for use in our reviews: > > http://www.apps.ietf.org/node/14 > > Feedback is welcome. > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkrfgy8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyy0ACffX7LGL+XYl2cCztculw3Fe1X > iuoAniPdfMWHJaxVrZL1sQPdb4AElpev > =rdhU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > APPS-REVIEW mailing list > APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Oct 21 15:44:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06CB28C125 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:44:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z5iO511JOILJ for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9665828C107 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B35754011B; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:44:30 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4ADF8ECD.3010503@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:44:29 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Stone References: <4ADF832F.2000201@stpeter.im> <32BE37BF-DBDE-49DF-9C55-4FB3431BAE2A@serendipity.cx> In-Reply-To: <32BE37BF-DBDE-49DF-9C55-4FB3431BAE2A@serendipity.cx> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] template X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:44:23 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/21/09 4:40 PM, Aaron Stone wrote: > Meta review: is it possible to get descriptive uris? Hey, http://www.apps.ietf.org/node/14 is a fine URL. :P I've tried to set description URLs but I think I don't have permissions in our Drupal installation to do that (or Drupal is configured to not allow it). I'll ask our Drupal administrator about it... /psa -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrfjs0ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzd/QCgwDYRbTMBr9NjQnrVSF5unzYs un0AoMUH/Ra/yKnvF9IenwLznEm97JNa =jQPW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From eburger@standardstrack.com Wed Oct 21 16:08:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B5328C118 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DnkOXRx1a8O7 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19b.inmotionhosting.com [66.117.3.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA7228C113 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.199]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N0kHy-0002aw-GA; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:08:21 -0700 Message-Id: From: Eric Burger To: Peter Saint-Andre In-Reply-To: <4ADF832F.2000201@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:08:21 -0400 References: <4ADF832F.2000201@stpeter.im> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] template X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:08:20 -0000 I was too lazy to build a template (thanks for doing one!). However, folks found it useful to have links to sample reviews. I would incorporate that, or sample text, on the wiki page. On Oct 21, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I've made a brief template for use in our reviews: > > http://www.apps.ietf.org/node/14 > > Feedback is welcome. > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkrfgy8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyy0ACffX7LGL+XYl2cCztculw3Fe1X > iuoAniPdfMWHJaxVrZL1sQPdb4AElpev > =rdhU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > APPS-REVIEW mailing list > APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Oct 22 09:10:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676833A681F for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gb1okAAbNnl0 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9119F3A67FA for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 873A740341; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:10:08 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AE083DF.8080303@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:10:07 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Burger References: <4ADF832F.2000201@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] template X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:10:00 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/21/09 5:08 PM, Eric Burger wrote: > I was too lazy to build a template (thanks for doing one!). However, > folks found it useful to have links to sample reviews. I would > incorporate that, or sample text, on the wiki page. Links provided at http://www.apps.ietf.org/node/14 /psa -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrgg98ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vygBACcDcI514pM16zbR4M3lr5dc+/t sU4AoLuxZ6dotS6VkJBmjWKJtDYhEta5 =jSCq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lisa.dusseault@gmail.com Thu Oct 22 09:27:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978053A68B8 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:27:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.336 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.737, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VDe06ZZD9EdM for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869BF3A68A0 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so5441463vws.29 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:27:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pbK9c/IMOmavQp4twhEcXB3kGe+xhtc90p2WgkaAUpw=; b=u3vmDyLyUK8jrFhqATWz5xQZqRIRQ5A71eK0chlWxmtwCILeZaz4obD1JODuXJXzT8 OuYClq8/89lpuBzU3AqOq4UEhD4/FD/IDsAu2ECBia/eR2cB/7uCdkoXs/WI8lWiRde0 QRhQ2EFFEEDDOnwpr0GhPgLJCHcTcwvzctGq4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=oXCuhiOyIZVTezrnAEkfeSojzIAJdC26sSwQ4GlCAmlWVf3vvbexp/e1XIgqq5Ogcd g1TWq4XjZbVeYzVdIY3TjMuch0FZKNWen4zjL3G9/iewoideGb4BHbHkPreWoi+R+OCl yvLAbRRKpMGVJerYGVKUCJXeNjblPpFbVum5o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.126.155 with SMTP id c27mr4585159vcs.81.1256228476285; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:21:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AE083DF.8080303@stpeter.im> References: <4ADF832F.2000201@stpeter.im> <4AE083DF.8080303@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:21:16 -0700 Message-ID: From: Lisa Dusseault To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] template X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:27:37 -0000 As the Second Life community says, "Ossm". Lisa (if you say it out loud it sounds like "awesome". took me a while.) On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/21/09 5:08 PM, Eric Burger wrote: >> I was too lazy to build a template (thanks for doing one!). However, >> folks found it useful to have links to sample reviews. I would >> incorporate that, or sample text, on the wiki page. > > Links provided at http://www.apps.ietf.org/node/14 > > /psa > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkrgg98ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vygBACcDcI514pM16zbR4M3lr5dc+/t > sU4AoLuxZ6dotS6VkJBmjWKJtDYhEta5 > =jSCq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > APPS-REVIEW mailing list > APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review > From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Oct 28 08:38:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB7928C1DC for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:38:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PuRLP1Prsezq for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C2C28C1A6 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 149624008F for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:39:04 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AE86597.4010903@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:39:03 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "apps-review@ietf.org" X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) to Proposed Standard] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:38:52 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Any volunteers to complete a review of this AppsArea I-D? Don't be shy just because one of our ADs is the author. ;-) /psa - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) to Proposed Standard Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) From: The IESG Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - - 'PATCH Method for HTTP ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-11-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11143&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkroZZcACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx5wQCfSeUIwd1QU6KeYa0dPqvTJcaQ vJkAoOzejuoQ4XtKZ8ytXSi1lPiNlh1z =hWZW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lear@cisco.com Wed Oct 28 09:12:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC913A6847 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.995 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PK5Gd-4dSOpu for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155673A690B for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlcAAC8K6EqQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACEcpZNAQEWJAamHIcSkSGBMoI6UwSBYYVv X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,640,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="53017884" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2009 16:12:58 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com [10.55.94.136]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9SGCv7P004331; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:12:58 GMT Message-ID: <4AE86D89.2000909@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:12:57 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5pre) Gecko/20091024 Shredder/3.0pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <4AE86597.4010903@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4AE86597.4010903@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) to Proposed Standard] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:12:48 -0000 I'll take it. On 10/28/09 4:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Any volunteers to complete a review of this AppsArea I-D? Don't be shy > just because one of our ADs is the author. ;-) > > /psa > > - -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) > to Proposed Standard > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) > From: The IESG > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org > To: IETF-Announce > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - - 'PATCH Method for HTTP ' > as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-11-24. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11143&rfc_flag=0 > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkroZZcACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx5wQCfSeUIwd1QU6KeYa0dPqvTJcaQ > vJkAoOzejuoQ4XtKZ8ytXSi1lPiNlh1z > =hWZW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > APPS-REVIEW mailing list > APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review > > From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Oct 28 09:25:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946B528C10C for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6mBmB1Y4NdLS for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1190428C232 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFD2D4011B; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:25:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AE87065.70604@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:25:09 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eliot Lear References: <4AE86597.4010903@stpeter.im> <4AE86D89.2000909@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4AE86D89.2000909@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) to Proposed Standard] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:25:12 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks, Eliot! On 10/28/09 10:12 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > I'll take it. > > On 10/28/09 4:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Any volunteers to complete a review of this AppsArea I-D? Don't be shy > just because one of our ADs is the author. ;-) > > /psa > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) > to Proposed Standard > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) > From: The IESG > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org > To: IETF-Announce > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - 'PATCH Method for HTTP ' > as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-11-24. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11143&rfc_flag=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrocGUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vz9fQCZAacKqunfPyboWUEv8bftYsJl Hy0An3LQoC86ABNJuKHT+7tnBhsrwCh+ =0Ktv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lear@cisco.com Wed Oct 28 11:00:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED85828C1B6 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:00:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.563, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qCvxEHqYCBJm for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EED128C179 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmcAAPYj6EqQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACCITGCIJZMAQEWJAamIocSkRyDbFME X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,641,1249257600"; d="scan'208,217";a="53027953" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2009 18:00:39 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com [10.55.94.136]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9SI0cXi003023; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:00:38 GMT Message-ID: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:00:38 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5pre) Gecko/20091024 Shredder/3.0pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault , jasnell@gmail.com, "apps-review@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060602010901010806090507" Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:00:29 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060602010901010806090507 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for this draft (for background on apps-review, please see http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 Reviewer: Eliot Lear Review Date: October 28, 2009 Review Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but should address the one major design issue below before proceeding. Document Summary: This document specifies an additional HTTP method, PATCH, which operates on a URI in a manner specific to document type. Major Issues: There is precisely one key design decision in this document that seems to me at all controversial: Is media-type the appropriate key to determine the appropriate PATCH method? Is that level of indirection correct? This immediately limits the number of PATCH methods per media-type to one, and seems to me to provide a difficult route to change the PATCH method. For example, suppose patch(1) became the standard for text/plain, and a new more expressive diff/patch came along. How would that be communicated between client and server? Let's assume for the moment that using a new media-type is not the best solution. Minor issues: No matter how the authors answer the above question, I would suggest that an additional IANA registry for PATCH methods be created. The structure of that registry, however, will depend on the answer to the above. Nits: Section 2, 3rd para, last sentence: > i.e., new resources may be > created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH or removed? --------------060602010901010806090507 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for this draft (for background on apps-review, please see http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-dusseault-http-patch-15
Reviewer: Eliot Lear
Review Date: October 28, 2009

Review Summary:

This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but should address the one major design issue below before proceeding.

Document Summary:

This document specifies an additional HTTP method, PATCH, which operates on a URI in a manner specific to document type.

Major Issues:

There is precisely one key design decision in this document that seems to me at all controversial:
Is media-type the appropriate key to determine the appropriate PATCH method?  Is that level of indirection correct?  This immediately limits the number of PATCH methods per media-type to one, and seems to me to provide a difficult route to change the PATCH method.  For example, suppose patch(1) became the standard for text/plain, and a new more expressive diff/patch came along.  How would that be communicated between client and server?  Let's assume for the moment that using a new media-type is not the best solution.

Minor issues:

No matter how the authors answer the above question, I would suggest that an additional IANA registry for PATCH methods be created.  The structure of that registry, however, will depend on the answer to the above.

Nits:

Section 2, 3rd para, last sentence:

i.e., new resources may be
   created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH

or removed?


--------------060602010901010806090507-- From julian.reschke@gmx.de Wed Oct 28 11:08:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D053A6A40 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:08:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.894 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.295, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ylLCP0s3aUZU for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 70B9D3A6A2E for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:08:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2009 18:08:57 -0000 Received: from p508FCF7E.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.207.126] by mail.gmx.net (mp058) with SMTP; 28 Oct 2009 19:08:57 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18pNApsrK4ppOdBVRSrnMP33YW9776wZaRs4peXHA eEjf9ZZI5CvO+s Message-ID: <4AE888B2.9040302@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:08:50 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eliot Lear References: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.68 Cc: jasnell@gmail.com, "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:08:46 -0000 Eliot Lear wrote: > ... > There is precisely one key design decision in this document that seems > to me at all controversial: > Is media-type the appropriate key to determine the appropriate PATCH > method? Is that level of indirection correct? This immediately limits > the number of PATCH methods per media-type to one, and seems to me to > provide a difficult route to change the PATCH method. For example, > suppose patch(1) became the standard for text/plain, and a new more > expressive diff/patch came along. How would that be communicated > between client and server? Let's assume for the moment that using a new > media-type is not the best solution. > ... The media type of the payload of the patch request is completely orthogonal to the media type of the thing being patched. Yes, that means that we need to define one media type per patch format; but that's by design in HTTP, methinks. > ... BR, Julian From lear@cisco.com Wed Oct 28 11:30:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1543A6867 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:30:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.07 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.07 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.529, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YgBqvill3nAv for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F51A3A6A44 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlcAAP8q6EqQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACEcpZOAQEWJAamQYcSkRuBMoI6UwQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,641,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="53030008" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2009 18:30:32 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com [10.55.94.136]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9SIUWFh009461; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:30:32 GMT Message-ID: <4AE88DC8.7050805@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:30:32 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5pre) Gecko/20091024 Shredder/3.0pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> <4AE888B2.9040302@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4AE888B2.9040302@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jasnell@gmail.com, "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:30:19 -0000 Thanks, Julian, for your response. Please see below: > The media type of the payload of the patch request is completely > orthogonal to the media type of the thing being patched. Yes, that > means that we need to define one media type per patch format; but > that's by design in HTTP, methinks. Ok, I understand. And so you just re-register a new media-type for the different PATCH method (assuming the type doesn't already exist). Thus the new header. Okay. I withdraw my major concern. From julian.reschke@gmx.de Wed Oct 28 11:33:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5423A6867 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:33:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.202, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HGVkmkQ9rNNi for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 034BE3A6A2B for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2009 18:33:34 -0000 Received: from p508FCF7E.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.207.126] by mail.gmx.net (mp017) with SMTP; 28 Oct 2009 19:33:34 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+byTo+9W6b+fxmkYAnIgrTdlbe61J3eqrUzAMqxR Dl6AG31CeooIy4 Message-ID: <4AE88E6B.4060703@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:33:15 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eliot Lear References: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> <4AE888B2.9040302@gmx.de> <4AE88DC8.7050805@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4AE88DC8.7050805@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.67 Cc: jasnell@gmail.com, "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:33:25 -0000 Eliot Lear wrote: > Thanks, Julian, for your response. Please see below: > >> The media type of the payload of the patch request is completely >> orthogonal to the media type of the thing being patched. Yes, that >> means that we need to define one media type per patch format; but >> that's by design in HTTP, methinks. > > Ok, I understand. And so you just re-register a new media-type for the > different PATCH method (assuming the type doesn't already exist). Thus > the new header. Okay. I withdraw my major concern. Um, which new header? Accept-Patch? BR, Julian From lear@cisco.com Wed Oct 28 11:34:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEC83A697A for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.498, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KKa7lOZ2KubZ for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363153A6867 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlcAAP8q6EqQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACEcpZOAQEWJAamQYcSkRuBMoI6UwQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,641,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="53030259" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2009 18:34:43 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com [10.55.94.136]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9SIYhZl010223; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:34:43 GMT Message-ID: <4AE88EC3.9040609@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:34:43 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5pre) Gecko/20091024 Shredder/3.0pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> <4AE888B2.9040302@gmx.de> <4AE88DC8.7050805@cisco.com> <4AE88E6B.4060703@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4AE88E6B.4060703@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jasnell@gmail.com, "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:34:30 -0000 On 10/28/09 7:33 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Eliot Lear wrote: >> Thanks, Julian, for your response. Please see below: >> >>> The media type of the payload of the patch request is completely >>> orthogonal to the media type of the thing being patched. Yes, that >>> means that we need to define one media type per patch format; but >>> that's by design in HTTP, methinks. >> >> Ok, I understand. And so you just re-register a new media-type for >> the different PATCH method (assuming the type doesn't already >> exist). Thus the new header. Okay. I withdraw my major concern. > > Um, which new header? Accept-Patch? yes. From aaron@serendipity.cx Wed Oct 28 11:41:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3A428C179 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:41:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NMB8VYkUJp6v for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.cx [75.101.96.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC4428C11F for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serendipity.cx (domuWebserver [10.10.10.34]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729753C33; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:46:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:46:12 -0700 From: Aaron Stone To: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> References: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: aaron@serendipity.cx User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: jasnell@gmail.com, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:41:25 -0000 Side note: looks like media types for text/unified-diff, text/context-diff (or should those be application/vnd.gnu...), vcdiff (which has no media type registered that I could find), etc., should be registered. My open question: What does one do with a patch document that describes actions on multiple resources? Should we leave it assumed that this just doesn't make sense in the HTTP context? Or does it make sense, if, say, the resource of the PATCH method maps to a directory and the patch document applies to several files within that directory? In that case, does anything need to be said about the behavior of PATCH for this type of patch? On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:00:38 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for > this draft (for background on apps-review, please see > http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 > Reviewer: Eliot Lear > Review Date: October 28, 2009 > > Review Summary: > > This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but > should address the one major design issue below before proceeding. > > Document Summary: > > This document specifies an additional HTTP method, PATCH, which operates > on a URI in a manner specific to document type. > > Major Issues: > > There is precisely one key design decision in this document that seems > to me at all controversial: > Is media-type the appropriate key to determine the appropriate PATCH > method? Is that level of indirection correct? This immediately limits > the number of PATCH methods per media-type to one, and seems to me to > provide a difficult route to change the PATCH method. For example, > suppose patch(1) became the standard for text/plain, and a new more > expressive diff/patch came along. How would that be communicated > between client and server? Let's assume for the moment that using a new > media-type is not the best solution. I found Section 3.2 to adequately describe which patch formats a server is willing to accept for a given resource. The Accept-Patch header is defined to allow multiple patch formats. A client might have to issue both HEAD and OPTIONS to learn the media type of the document and the patch formats that can be used, and you might have to add ETags to protect against a PUT changing the resource type out from under you, etc. etc., but I don't think the issue you raise exists. 3.2. Example OPTIONS Request and Response [request] OPTIONS /example/buddies.xml HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com [response] HTTP/1.1 200 OK Allow: GET, PUT, POST, OPTIONS, HEAD, DELETE, PATCH Accept-Patch: application/example, text/example The examples show a server that supports PATCH generally using two hypothetical patch document formats. > Minor issues: > > No matter how the authors answer the above question, I would suggest > that an additional IANA registry for PATCH methods be created. The > structure of that registry, however, will depend on the answer to the > above. > > Nits: > > Section 2, 3rd para, last sentence: > >> i.e., new resources may be >> created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH > > or removed? From lear@cisco.com Wed Oct 28 11:48:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FF528C1CB for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:48:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.129 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.469, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZ6Xmk-UMWJv for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CFB28C1C5 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: An4AAIIu6EqQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACCIjCCIJZOAQEWJAamVYcSkRqDbFME X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,641,1249257600"; d="scan'208,217";a="53031136" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2009 18:48:28 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-94-136.cisco.com [10.55.94.136]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9SImRoX013036; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:48:27 GMT Message-ID: <4AE891FB.5070907@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:48:27 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5pre) Gecko/20091024 Shredder/3.0pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Stone References: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030001030606070300010806" Cc: jasnell@gmail.com, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:48:15 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030001030606070300010806 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Aaron, > My open question: > What does one do with a patch document that describes actions on multiple > resources? Should we leave it assumed that this just doesn't make sense in > the HTTP context? Or does it make sense, if, say, the resource of the PATCH > method maps to a directory and the patch document applies to several files > within that directory? In that case, does anything need to be said about > the behavior of PATCH for this type of patch? > > > Here I think the draft is pretty specific: The PATCH method affects the resource identified by the Request-URI, and also MAY have side effects on other resources; i.e., new resources may be created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH. So to me that says, 'yeah, patch might monkey with groups of files'. It's left to the server to decide whether that's allowed. I would imagine this would be based on who is requesting the operation, and whether the operation would succeed on the individual files separately. It's a pretty well written draft. Eliot --------------030001030606070300010806 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Aaron,
My open question:
What does one do with a patch document that describes actions on multiple
resources? Should we leave it assumed that this just doesn't make sense in
the HTTP context? Or does it make sense, if, say, the resource of the PATCH
method maps to a directory and the patch document applies to several files
within that directory? In that case, does anything need to be said about
the behavior of PATCH for this type of patch?

Here I think the draft is pretty specific:

   The PATCH
   method affects the resource identified by the Request-URI, and also
   MAY have side effects on other resources; i.e., new resources may be
   created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH.

So to me that says, 'yeah, patch might monkey with groups of files'.  It's left to the server to decide whether that's allowed.  I would imagine this would be based on who is requesting the operation, and whether the operation would succeed on the individual files separately.

It's a pretty well written draft.

Eliot
--------------030001030606070300010806-- From aaron@serendipity.cx Wed Oct 28 13:47:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503383A6AA2 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:47:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id beaLiE5uMFnn for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.cx [75.101.96.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BBB3A6AA5 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serendipity.cx (domuWebserver [10.10.10.34]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1ADB3C33; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:52:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:52:02 -0700 From: Aaron Stone To: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <4AE891FB.5070907@cisco.com> References: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> <4AE891FB.5070907@cisco.com> Message-ID: <9e64da838c20a4cf365a426a1924d34f@serendipity.cx> X-Sender: aaron@serendipity.cx User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: jasnell@gmail.com, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:47:14 -0000 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:48:27 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > Aaron, >> My open question: >> What does one do with a patch document that describes actions on multiple >> resources? Should we leave it assumed that this just doesn't make sense >> in >> the HTTP context? Or does it make sense, if, say, the resource of the >> PATCH >> method maps to a directory and the patch document applies to several >> files >> within that directory? In that case, does anything need to be said about >> the behavior of PATCH for this type of patch? >> >> >> > > Here I think the draft is pretty specific: > > The PATCH > method affects the resource identified by the Request-URI, and also > MAY have side effects on other resources; i.e., new resources may be > created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH. > > > So to me that says, 'yeah, patch might monkey with groups of files'. > It's left to the server to decide whether that's allowed. I would > imagine this would be based on who is requesting the operation, and > whether the operation would succeed on the individual files separately. I thought I saw something about multiple resources on first read, but I missed it the second time around. Thanks for pointing it out. This is the same place you're suggesting to add 'delete' -- I agree. If it's worth adding some example text, here's a suggestion: For example, the common 'diff' utility can generate a patch document that applies to multiple files in a directory hierarchy. A client could apply this patch to a server using the PATCH method on a resource that maps to a directory on the server containing the files to be patched. The requirement for atomicity of the request holds for all affected files. > It's a pretty well written draft. Yep, agreed. Aaron From lisa.dusseault@gmail.com Thu Oct 29 15:00:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323B73A6992 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.191, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jY2P4qFaYGvi for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f193.google.com (mail-vw0-f193.google.com [209.85.212.193]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630DB3A67ED for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws31 with SMTP id 31so473935vws.29 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=renqxirtR+KocfqDwgwJAehHAtYzCZ7NWdXblVji1s0=; b=TliwtJ/1trLNRccD31aS4rgAcFktlPTeEzkdRwSs1XxfuWJti9259fhi7W3B9+9WjX kzOD0WGW0n3RK95AqihBhLbJXuXyJ0TNK4OjCXZl+aglZ73AKVqOAtRPmggogBgsgd2R nxvItypEuvwRMLc0ssTnyYQTHkZNzA/nDvM1s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pZE5T5a9vmwLgAvysyoZBQdnqCIaZd8bIzn+HfsJ5qbpb1maVn790N292ePQmM0Fch hjyG3q65EcbvhaXtRTzaK4Zl1LBrMAmcyoay0HrzjlwS0D8gTIJVs/hBDw3zqAFME0dy McO3aCZwRqR+zhugXVLnhNb/rgUf9QSg3cePY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.124.16 with SMTP id s16mr914558vcr.29.1256853646844; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9e64da838c20a4cf365a426a1924d34f@serendipity.cx> References: <4AE886C6.20102@cisco.com> <4AE891FB.5070907@cisco.com> <9e64da838c20a4cf365a426a1924d34f@serendipity.cx> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:46 -0700 Message-ID: From: Lisa Dusseault To: Aaron Stone Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Mark Nottingham , jasnell@gmail.com, apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:00:32 -0000 On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Aaron Stone wrote: > > If it's worth adding some example text, here's a suggestion: > > =A0 For example, the common 'diff' utility can generate a patch document = that > =A0 applies to multiple files in a directory hierarchy. A client could ap= ply > =A0 this patch to a server using the PATCH method on a resource that maps= to a > =A0 directory on the server containing the files to be patched. The requi= rement > =A0 for atomicity of the request holds for all affected files. Thanks! I would be happy to add this to the doc. I'll file it as perhaps an RFC Ed. note to save having to do a new version, unless there are more changes as a result of IETF Last Call and IESG Evaluation. Lisa From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 30 09:27:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E39A3A68C4 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:27:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4w3iNiC3u96z for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927163A685B for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF61C4008F for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:28:09 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AEB141C.5050603@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:28:12 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "apps-review@ietf.org" X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Review of metalink I-D] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:27:53 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks, Mark! I notice that you sent this to apps-discuss. Indeed, that might be a better place to send reviews than apps-review, because apps-discuss has broader distribution and anyone can subscribe (although it is always best to cc the authors). Are there any objections to making that team policy? We would retain apps-review for team discussions (requesting reviews, complaints about the team leads, etc.). /psa - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Review of metalink I-D Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:46:23 -0300 From: Mark Baker To: apps-discuss@ietf.org This is my review of draft-bryan-metalink-21. - - sec 3, last paragraph, it is mentioned that some kinds of white space can produce an "invalid" document, yet no where is it defined what that means - - sec 4.1.2.1. not sure why "name" is a MUST. I'm sure metalink agents can pick a reasonable one, or ask the user, but if it was required then they might not include this logic. - - sec 4.2.3. If metalink:dynamic is intended to be a cue to agents to redownload the file periodically, you probably also want to give them an indication of how often to do so. HTTP caching could be used to do that. - - sec 4.2.6, the Openoffice example confused me briefly. You need to make sure it's seen to be an example, and also that "OpenOffice.org" isn't the only possible value. Perhaps change to; The "metalink:identity" element is a Text construct that conveys a human-readable name for a file. For example, the identity of OpenOffice.org 3.0 might be "OpenOffice.org", "Openoffice", or "OpenOffice 3.0". - - sec 4.2.10.2. do we really need to use a special "torrent" type when "application/x-bittorrent" could be used? I'd prefer to stick just to media type syntax and get rid of the reserved syntax. You should also call them "media types" instead of (or as well as if you prefer) MIME types, and include a reference to BCP 13. - - in sec 6.3, it's not within the authority of a protocol specification to tell agents that they "MUST NOT stop processing" or "MUST NOT change their behaviour". They might have their own perfectly good reasons for, say, halting if some XHTML with Javascript were included. I agree with what you're trying to accomplish, but that should be specified by saying, for example, that extensions can be ignored. Overall, a decent spec. It's nice to see extensibility given considerable attention for a change. Mark. _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrrFBwACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyRgACg728vNORAhAoUuJcBfxt2Pav6 PBkAn3SS28yiMtCNpxde9wMEH2wFhtWw =mU+/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 30 09:53:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291093A684E for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SjqteQ69f4s6 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F9B3A67D1 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DD1C4008F for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:54:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AEB1A31.2010506@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:54:09 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "apps-review@ietf.org" X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] tracker page X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:53:50 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI, I've created a page where we can track the reviews completed by our team: http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-tracker /psa -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrrGjEACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwg9QCeJhTlb6Q+LoPZJm407HVMA3xH UzAAoKz/FEMgelvebeU2zCjesjeaAqVB =QAUu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mark@coactus.com Fri Oct 30 10:26:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9583A67F1 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y3l9HiAyjBpY for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f204.google.com (mail-pz0-f204.google.com [209.85.222.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB583A67BD for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk42 with SMTP id 42so2342911pzk.31 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:26:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mark@coactus.com Received: by 10.142.75.21 with SMTP id x21mr203203wfa.150.1256923601996; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:26:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AEB141C.5050603@stpeter.im> References: <4AEB141C.5050603@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:26:41 -0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 89c7b39c4368d827 Message-ID: From: Mark Baker To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Review of metalink I-D] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:26:28 -0000 On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks, Mark! > > I notice that you sent this to apps-discuss. Indeed, that might be a > better place to send reviews than apps-review, because apps-discuss has > broader distribution and anyone can subscribe (although it is always > best to cc the authors). I sent my review to apps-discuss primarily because I assumed that was already the case, but agree it would make for a good policy. Agreed about CCing the authors too. Mark. From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 30 10:36:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7613E3A6782 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:36:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y7C7twEXbVoB for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F053A6768 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C45A4008F; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:36:16 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AEB240F.3030403@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:36:15 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Baker References: <4AEB141C.5050603@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Review of metalink I-D] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:36:00 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/30/09 11:26 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Thanks, Mark! >> >> I notice that you sent this to apps-discuss. Indeed, that might be a >> better place to send reviews than apps-review, because apps-discuss has >> broader distribution and anyone can subscribe (although it is always >> best to cc the authors). > > I sent my review to apps-discuss primarily because I assumed that was > already the case, but agree it would make for a good policy. > > Agreed about CCing the authors too. OK, we have rough consensus. ;-) http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team has been updated accordingly. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrrJA8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxrVACeJ0XTslITlde3rvId8KonZSjG mzAAn0hryensJgylNsmwIODmY3BldyCO =M2mQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sm@elandsys.com Fri Oct 30 11:49:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E6B3A68C2 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:49:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ql2ExpkGZQO for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AEE3A6877 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.235]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9UInNb6027343; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:49:29 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1256928570; x=1257014970; bh=mJTqF6A0b0SIjiB2xlyKI/p+XNU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=S8FizdVavdPrbJ1fmicmxiG8JDhN7uCbDlpIhyUD5LsTMq6j683CXNQyx2HKarJuq zno0U9g+4NWIdX/vZ5x6/D37K44qx6/h/j6UwNgetc8UXbjXQU+L2xVKE7JXqdnCFy 9Go1JUghYYhulvnKt2CFH0ayDq9MCEqSSbKSgyt8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20091030104451.03021e98@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:49:10 -0700 To: Peter Saint-Andre From: SM In-Reply-To: <4AD8BF62.1080401@stpeter.im> References: <4AD8BF62.1080401@stpeter.im> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] team update X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:49:15 -0000 Hi Peter, At 11:45 16-10-2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >And of course if you have suggestions for ways to improve the >apps-review team (e.g., a template for reviews, a page for tracking >review assignments, etc.), please do send them along. The reviews are described as "semi-formal reviews of Internet-Drafts as a way to improve the quality of IETF specifications". The current procedure is for the author to request a review. The target audience is ill-defined. Authors who are not familiar with the IETF may not be aware of apps-discuss. I suggest doing the reviews to help the Apps AD. That narrows down the target audience and makes the review informational instead of "authors must change their proposal as this review says so". In addition to review requests, it might be good to identify drafts that have an impact on the Apps Area. That could be done as a second stage if the team has the energy to do the work. The subject of the email when submitting the review could be "apps-team review of draft-name". The email could be copied to document authors, the WG chairs (if applicable), the Document Shepherd, the apps-discuss mailing list and the apps-review mailing list. It would be good if the review is not a substitute for reviews from outside the Apps Area team. If I have read the different iterations of an I-D, I might not notice some mistakes. I probably won't pick an I-D in here if I commented on it previously. The above is more of a "think about it" and not a review. Regards, S. Moonesamy From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Fri Oct 30 12:00:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7233A6917 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:00:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vVZ7TWsarpi2 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:00:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE02C3A69D1 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.2.147] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:00:37 +0000 Message-ID: <4AEB37B8.80006@isode.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:00:08 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: SM References: <4AD8BF62.1080401@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20091030104451.03021e98@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20091030104451.03021e98@resistor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] team update X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:00:31 -0000 SM wrote: > Hi Peter, > At 11:45 16-10-2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> And of course if you have suggestions for ways to improve the >> apps-review team (e.g., a template for reviews, a page for tracking >> review assignments, etc.), please do send them along. > > The reviews are described as "semi-formal reviews of Internet-Drafts > as a way to improve the quality of IETF specifications". The current > procedure is for the author to request a review. The target audience > is ill-defined. Authors who are not familiar with the IETF may not be > aware of apps-discuss. > > I suggest doing the reviews to help the Apps AD. This is indeed the intend. Just like SecDir or GenArt reviews. > That narrows down the target audience and makes the review > informational instead of "authors must change their proposal as this > review says so". In addition to review requests, it might be good to > identify drafts that have an impact on the Apps Area. That could be > done as a second stage if the team has the energy to do the work. > > The subject of the email when submitting the review could be > "apps-team review of draft-name". The email could be copied to > document authors, the WG chairs (if applicable), the Document Shepherd, Indeed, don't forget the shepherd. > the apps-discuss mailing list and the apps-review mailing list. Either one of these would be fine as far as I am concerned. From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Fri Oct 30 13:03:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7283A68AE for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z-hmOONEAnX1 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f228.google.com (mail-gx0-f228.google.com [209.85.217.228]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958823A6899 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so3203225gxk.9 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:04:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+zcBebUF7zGHvOPuENt3O7bhX9/h/eVu9d4+QhQDTHk=; b=hmArpDhhq6CwmjT3mRIOxBpw6HAmCgv1FH5Xjin+EP6wtc6Rj1yygCSXjnHaY5kGvG 6y+gfu58k5qLTdjbDJzp8y8M+TQOGtDWcfSlx+oI99NH4hW8zfFT12VtGKqR0e0hakYq D3EvQZsXDj1EeX1HTLkTG7VE5D/QXPy1KcuAQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=RgegodSS2xCWL+13JKpNi/15pOHD4KV2jELMtEQvJw4VexBSqPDqDzCl+tqhmUOyzW VyDISUeU4PPiWUI9U9totXSbk4hdIzpurUBk4R4xEpQ2NZxM7J6QqnZyDt/0+PoR5pnI nzXe2n02AIDHrjuKwhvr03iF77agWvGIgPNFM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.7.17 with SMTP id 17mr3866303ybg.47.1256933043358; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:04:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AEB240F.3030403@stpeter.im> References: <4AEB141C.5050603@stpeter.im> <4AEB240F.3030403@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:04:03 -0400 Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a0910301304k4f458856tbda21efd048b645e@mail.gmail.com> From: Barry Leiba To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Review of metalink I-D] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: barryleiba@computer.org List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:03:50 -0000 > http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team has been > updated accordingly. ... > Reviewers: Please send all reviews to the apps-discuss list and make > sure to cc the author(s) of the specification you are reviewing! I think we should also CC the working-group chairs, for documents that belong to WGs, and the document shepherd, if the document has a shepherd and that shepherd is not one of the chairs. Barry From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 30 13:21:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6768B3A67F3 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:21:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t+wCGFwuRxGR for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816A93A67BD for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8F034008F; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:21:54 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AEB4AE1.4070208@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:21:53 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: barryleiba@computer.org References: <4AEB141C.5050603@stpeter.im> <4AEB240F.3030403@stpeter.im> <6c9fcc2a0910301304k4f458856tbda21efd048b645e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6c9fcc2a0910301304k4f458856tbda21efd048b645e@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "apps-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Review of metalink I-D] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:21:38 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/30/09 2:04 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team has been >> updated accordingly. > ... >> Reviewers: Please send all reviews to the apps-discuss list and make >> sure to cc the author(s) of the specification you are reviewing! > > I think we should also CC the working-group chairs, for documents that > belong to WGs, and the document shepherd, if the document has a > shepherd and that shepherd is not one of the chairs. Is there a straightforward way to discover the document shepherd? I don't see that information listed in the datatracker, but I might be missing something. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrrSuEACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwL3gCfbnlawUqvExSHSaAQyJsm0vgK DsgAnR7UTEeQcHU8uyux6XyX2PU2IRxY =NFKq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sm@elandsys.com Fri Oct 30 14:13:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDAA3A6916 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:13:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wLr434BEPOub for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8AB3A63EC for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.235]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9ULDpg0003543; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:13:57 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1256937238; x=1257023638; bh=MJSEai5PS3NvhZ1e8KtXZ4YVlIw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=2RoqVUW+yaJg+HG3D+5CCxpfcbpDky65SrOPztWPsH15g3SMtNaN9ijoOIbAJ37LF QQ3Y/SYYh4sIs7gsYngwA/rLv3pgKaDdoQFOXOCBwRnARxyysRgaG8Q7KogRRUfpR4 8E1AgOHofG/Nht/hgyoYNtil/8Q9ZvxAKWx//Dx4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20091030133445.043d10a8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:09:27 -0700 To: Peter Saint-Andre From: SM In-Reply-To: <4AEB4AE1.4070208@stpeter.im> References: <4AEB141C.5050603@stpeter.im> <4AEB240F.3030403@stpeter.im> <6c9fcc2a0910301304k4f458856tbda21efd048b645e@mail.gmail.com> <4AEB4AE1.4070208@stpeter.im> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Review of metalink I-D] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:13:42 -0000 At 13:21 30-10-2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >Is there a straightforward way to discover the document shepherd? I >don't see that information listed in the datatracker, but I might be >missing something. You can use https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ I'll use Lisa's I-D as an example. https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-dusseault-http-patch/ mentions the responsible I-D and the Document Shepherd. An I-D may not have been assigned to an AD or have a Document Shepherd yet. Should the team review such an I-D? I'll say maybe if it helps the Apps Area ADs decide whether to sponsor the I-D. But you may be reviewing the document too early then (see Alexey's message about the intent). The bottom line is whether to use the process to determine the acceptable level of quality for an I-D to be reviewed. Regards, S. Moonesamy From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 30 14:17:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F9F3A69C1 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xiG5h5cKIM-c for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6B93A69B5 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FE1B4008F; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:18:00 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4AEB5807.8060805@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:17:59 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <4AEB141C.5050603@stpeter.im> <4AEB240F.3030403@stpeter.im> <6c9fcc2a0910301304k4f458856tbda21efd048b645e@mail.gmail.com> <4AEB4AE1.4070208@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20091030133445.043d10a8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20091030133445.043d10a8@elandnews.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] [Fwd: Review of metalink I-D] X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:17:44 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/30/09 3:09 PM, SM wrote: > At 13:21 30-10-2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Is there a straightforward way to discover the document shepherd? I >> don't see that information listed in the datatracker, but I might be >> missing something. > > You can use https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ I'll use Lisa's I-D > as an example. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-dusseault-http-patch/ > mentions the responsible I-D and the Document Shepherd. Aha, I had ended up at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch/ instead of https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-dusseault-http-patch/ > An I-D may not have been assigned to an AD or have a Document Shepherd > yet. Should the team review such an I-D? I'll say maybe if it helps > the Apps Area ADs decide whether to sponsor the I-D. But you may be > reviewing the document too early then (see Alexey's message about the > intent). In general we will be reviewing documents in IETF Last Call, so they will have at least an AD and perhaps a shepherd. We will complete early reviews if requested, but I think that will be exceptional. > The bottom line is whether to use the process to determine the > acceptable level of quality for an I-D to be reviewed. Yes. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrrWAcACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyvDACgyJTU91nHWmCd8OdwTSGSJjDt jlYAoMYGx09MEPCweaX1lw8Y+ki4mqui =xofp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----