Atom Threading Extensions
draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-12
Yes
(Lisa Dusseault)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-06-19)
Unknown
Explanation of a puzzling choice by the author, following Gen-ART review comment by Joel Halpern: Several of the attributes have a type of "atomURI". However, reading the text carefully, it is clear that they are actually IRIs. I suspect that those have the same syntax. But since they have different semantics, it seems odd for the syntax definition to refer to atomURI rather than atomIRI. At 12:15 AM 6/16/2006, James M Snell wrote: > The atomURI label is adopted from RFC4287, which also uses the labels to > accept IRI's. Yes, it is confusing, but given that this is an extension > to RFC4287, I felt it was better to reuse the concepts than to redefine > them.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-06-22)
Unknown
The 3rd paragraph of section 7 says: > > Such attacks can be prevented or mitigated by allowing users to > explicitly configure the sources from which responses may be > retrieved, or by applying heuristics to determine the legitimacy of > a given response source. > s/users/consumers/ The last paragraph of section 7 says: > > Digital Signatures as specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC4287] present > one possible avenue for mitigating such concerns, although the > presence of a valid XML Digital Signature within an entry is not, > by itself, a reliable defense against repudiation issues. > I agree. Can you provide a pointer to a description of the other aspects of a total solution?
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-06-21)
Unknown
I noticed that the namespace http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0 is not an SDO. I want to confirm that we hae sufficient control over this specification that we have change control for the future.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown