At 01:54 15-10-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
My reasoning is that, while the change seems fine, the precedent
seems atrocious. If this is approved via Independent Stream
publication and the next case that comes along is, unlike this
one, generally hated by the community, the amount of
hair-splitting required to deny that one having approved this
one would be impressive.. and bad for the IETF.
I was unable to see whether this specification would be of use to
data.gov as the site is still unaccessible. There is an opendata
site in Brazil ( http://dados.gov.br/), France (
http://www.data.gouv.fr/ ) and several other countries. The
specification may be relevant to opendata which is something of
interests to governments. It would have been better if the
specification was processed in the IETF Stream but the community was
not interested in taking it up (see msg-id:
CAC4RtVAeTGpHFA01YX=PS7CYeOfYFS0Sc-g3wb05USnoWyUJMQ(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com).
The draft updates a specification in the IETF Stream. It also
updates a registration in the standards tree. This has the hallmarks
of "not a good idea" as it will be a problem down the line. If it
takes a minimal effort to avoid a small problem it is worth the
effort. This is the list of persons who commented on the Last Call:
Tom Petch
John Klensin
Alexey Melnikov
Simon Perreault
Tim Bray
It's not like the expertise or experience is not there. In fact,
there's much more than the average IETF Last Call. I remember filing
the minority report against the attempt to kill the Independent
Submissions Stream. :-)
Regards,
-sm