[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers

[Sam Johnston]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Alexis Richardson <
alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well it sounds like at least three people, including myself, prefer
> the IETF model.
>

Another key consideration of the IETF model is that it is heavily reliant on
Internet-Drafts, which are basically an individuals' (or group of
individuals') proposed standard. These are then refined through various
versions and eventually become standards
(draft-nottingham-http-link-header<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header>is
currently on its 7th revision for example), or lose momentum and
expire
after 6 months.

The point is that the standard as at the point where the majority of the
discussion happens is often largely complete - which is not to say that it
cannot be changed, but that it should actually work out of the gate. You can
consider the document as it is today as an Internet-Draft if you like, and
either suggest refinements or propose your own complete document along with
a rationale as to why it is superior (which, if it is actually the case,
should result in myself and others adopting your approach).

Trying to build a standard from scratch is like trying to work out what
colour to paint the bikeshed <http://bikeshed.com/>, as evidenced by
discussions like this.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20091019/84e233e8/attachment.html