Thanks for nice comments! I am less excited about the HTTP draft
quality, but I think the quality is sufficient for a PS status (as
documented and, perhaps, as implemented by IESG as well). Early
implementations should allow for further bugfixing and polishing of
the draft.
The first thing IESG should notice is that the draft lacks IANA
Considerations section. We use iana.org URIs for profile feature
identifiers, but we do not "register" them. The identifier domain and
pathname components are questionable as well. We do not register
message part tokens either. I did not comment about that during the
last call because I do not know the solution, and because I am not
sure PS status requires IANA Considerations section. Hopefully, this
is a minor issue that will not delay the draft approval by much.
Thanks,
Alex.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Marshall Rose wrote:
Thanks to everybody who contributed to the draft, but in
particular to Martin and Alex who put in a lot of effort and time
into this draft - great job!!
i concur. excellent!
/mtr