Re: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00.txt> - update

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Yes, fixed now.  Mykyta

2012/1/4 Thomas Roessler <tlr@xxxxxx>:
> Thanks.
>
> In an editorial nit, the first example in 2.1 still uses the "disclosure-list" relationship type.
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@xxxxxx>  (@roessler)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2012-01-04, at 07:29 +0100, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> So I've submitted the revised version, taking into account all the LC
>> comments, and the consensus on defining W3C's current practice (as I
>> see many comments received with this respect) rather than two separate
>> relation types.  A number of other edits have been made; you may see
>> the diffs at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-01
>> and the draft at
>> tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-01.
>> Meanwhile, as the document is deferred to next IESG telechat, you may
>> freely submit your comments on this version, either publicly or
>> privately to the author.
>>
>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>>
>> 2012/1/4 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> <hat type='AD'/>
>>>
>>> On 1/2/12 12:36 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>>
>>>> While that was me who proposed the change to semantics, I tend more
>>>> and more to agree with documenting the existing practice; but let's
>>>> wait a response from W3C community first to see what's their attitude
>>>> towards the proposal.
>>>
>>> Mykyta,
>>>
>>> You have not yet submitted a revised I-D. Currently the document under
>>> consideration is draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00. If you want
>>> to make fundamental changes to the spec, please do so by submitting a
>>> revised I-D.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, I have deferred the document to the January 19 telechat
>>> while you decide how you want to proceed.
>>>
>>> If you decide that you want to define two link relations instead of one,
>>> you will need to submit a revised I-D, which will need to undergo
>>> another review on the link-relations@xxxxxxxx list and then another IETF
>>> Last Call.
>>>
>>> There is no need to waste IESG and general IETF attention on this
>>> specification if the author can't make up his mind about his own intentions.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Saint-Andre
>>> https://stpeter.im/
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]