Subject: [weirds] On redirects

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:46:51 -0700

Colleagues,

Four drafts submitted.  We're getting down to the wire here!

I reviewed all the documents last week and posted review comments, as
you've seen.  With respect to the redirects document, I'm wondering if it
might be simpler to roll those contents into the using-http document.
Here's my reasoning:

0) We've only got a day or two left to meet our deadline.

1) The redirects document is not as close to being ready as the using-http
document is (I'm worried by the "TBC" and "TBD" notations especially).

2) Rudimentary support for redirects is already covered in Section 5.2 of
using-http.

3) Beyond definitions, references, and the usual boilerplate, the meat of
the redirects draft is about a page and a half long.

4) Author responsiveness is becoming a factor.

5) Less work for Pete.

I understand that there's at least one implementation of what's described
in this document, so I do want to preserve the work.  I'm just not certain
that it needs its own document given the constraints under which we're
presently operating.

Any opinions on this, especially from the authors of both documents?

-MSK

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:01:46 +0000

> Any opinions on this, especially from the authors of both documents?

I can quickly turn around some text in using-http that is ripped and converted from the redirects draft if that is what people want.

-andy

---

From: Tom Harrison <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:02:43 +1000

> might be simpler to roll those contents into the using-http document.

I think this is a good idea.

-Tom

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:15:24 -0300

I do agree.

On 9/23/2014 2:01 PM, Andy Newton wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:40:51 -0700

> I do agree.

Andy, please proceed.  Try to keep new text (i.e., wording or concepts not
in the redirects draft already) to a minimum so that we can still
reasonably claim that your changes have consensus.

I'll merge the two documents in the datatracker when we submit it to Pete.

-MSK