The end of the AtomPub WG

Joe Gregorio

IESG Secretary:

The Atom Publishing Format and Protocol WG (atompub) in the Application Area has concluded.

The IESG contact persons are Lisa Dusseault and Chris Newman.

The AtomPub WG was chartered to work on two items: the syndication format in RFC4287, and the publishing protocol in RFC5023. Implementations of these specs have been shown to work together and interoperate well to support publishing and syndication of text content and media resources.

Since both documents are now Proposed Standards, the WG has completed its charter and therefore closes as a WG. A mailing list will remain open for further discussion.

Congratulations and thanks to the chairs Tim Bray and Paul Hoffman, to the editors of the two WG RFCs (Mark Nottingham, Robert Sayre, Bill de Hora and Joe Gregorio), and to the many contributors and implementors.

A new WG can be chartered at any time, but I think we need to get some miles under these wheels before we know what needs to be worked on next. Work will also continue on drafts related to AtomPub, such as James' features draft. The mailing lists will remain active even after the WG is shut down and that's the place for any discussion around these I-Ds. Anything worked on now can still get an RFC number as 'Experimental' or 'Informational' specifications, but a new WG would have to be chartered for a specification to enter the standards track.

Out of curiosity: why do you think a WG is needed for a standards-track document? In the past, I have seen many individual submissions make it on the standards track...

Posted by Julian Reschke on 2007-10-23


There was wording in RFC 2026 that indicates that stuff can only move forward on the standards track with a WG in place, for example, Section 4.1.2:

The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet Standard status along with documentation about testing of the interoperation of these implementations.

But you are right, further reading didn't show any place where it was actually required.

Posted by Joe on 2007-10-23

The Atom Threading Extension is an example of an individual submission making it to the standards track, but that had the benefit of being reviewed by an active WG. With the WG now closed, the formal process is no longer in effect and care needs to be taken. It would serve no good purpose for any individual to try and push a "Proposed Standard" extension to Atom through without a WG. Informational or Experimental status would be enough to get it out there and hopefully get folks using it. After it proves to be useful enough, the community can come together, form a WG, and put something forward on the standards track.

Posted by James Snell on 2007-10-23

comments powered by Disqus