Hi all,
The document is OK for Yandex. We have reviewed it along with the way we interpret robots.txt in crawler.
Andrey Zosimov, head of Yandex crawler team
18.03.2022, 13:11, "Gary Illyes" <garyillyes@xxxxxxxxxx>:
Adding to this thread Andrey Zosimov (Yandex) and Fabrice Canel (Bing) to confirm the draft is acceptable for their respective search engines.Based on the feedback we received so far, we're not going to have more changes to the draft other than the boilerplate change discussed in this thread, and the example and language corrections in the ART review.--On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 22:24, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2022, at 3:52 am, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If the authors are prepared to make this change, I'd like to hear why "IETF Standards Track w/consensus" is (or should be) off the table, especially if other search engines are going to indicate support.
That's reasonable, if support eventuates. If it doesn't, it would be pretty awkward -- I think we'd want at least some level of review or at least acknowledgement by other major implementers before declaring it Standards Track.
AIUI a status change would necessitate another IETF LC, so that might be the best way to solicit that support. Make it a long one to give other implementations a meaningful way to respond -- say, four weeks.
If the IESG doesn't hear from at least two or three other stakeholder implementations (in its estimation), it could still be published at Informational, and transitioned to Standards Track if/when that support eventuates.
Make sense?
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Thanks,
Gary
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
