On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> At 16:25 12-08-10, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > I am very happy to work with you and the chairs and the working group
> > and whoever else to find wording that encourages interoperability,
> > gives readers a full understanding of the situation, and fulfills
> > whatever policies you may care about.
> According to BCP 9, "under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft be
> referenced by any paper, report, or Request-for-Proposal, nor should a
> vendor claim compliance with an Internet-Draft.
> draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol is "Work in Progress".
I don't understand the relevance of this. Who is referencing the draft or
claiming conformance to it?
My concern is not with people claiming conformance, it's with people
implementing it, of which there are many. It's imperative that people
implement the same thing, not old versions of the specification.
As I see it there are two ways to address this:
1. Make sure all versions are up to date.
2. Make sure versions that aren't up to date point to the version that is
up to date.
When Joe and I met a few months ago, Joe asked me to not update the
version on the IETF site as frequently. Therefore option 1 isn't available
to us. This leaves only option 2 as far as I can tell. I'm happy to use
option 1; that would indeed by far preferable to me. However, that
contradicts instructions I've received so far. Do those intstructions no
longer apply? I'm open to other options, if you have any. Simply ignoring
this situation, however, is not a good option.
Similar points apply to the other paragraph in question.
> > Here is proposed text to replace the two sections you mentioned:
> > Abstract
> > [...]
> > NOTE! THIS COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT THE EDITOR'S DRAFT AND
> > THEREFORE MAY NOT CONTAIN THE LATEST CHANGES.
> > For an up-to-date copy of this specification, please see:
> > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-socket-protocol/
> > Author's note
> > Please send feedback to the ***@ietf.org mailing list.
> > This document is automatically generated from the same source
> > document as the HTML specification, and is also published in HTML
> > form as part of the WHATWG Web Applications 1.0 specification.
> > Feedback is therefore also occasionally sent, against IETF policy, to
> > the ***@whatwg.org mailing list.
> > Would this address your concerns?
> This does not address the points mentioned in my previous messages.
It doesn't say the IETF version is obsolete and it doesn't recommend using
the WHATWG list. What points does it not address?
> A Document Editor is responsible for ensuring that the contents of the
> document accurately reflect the decisions that have been made by the
> working group. Your proposed text does not reflect that.
What decisions does it not reflect? I would be happy to correct this to
reflect any relevant decisions.
> It is also a general practice for a Document Editor to help ensure that
> that all processes are followed.
I'm trying to follow all the processes, but I don't think that should
preclude us doing the right thing as well. (Having said that, it's more
important that we foster interoperability than that we follow processes.
Without interoperability, the group is irrelevant. Without processes, the
group can still make progress.)
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'