W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Process for moving to Proposed Standard

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:29:58 -0700
To: "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Cc: <ned@innosoft.com>, <paf@cisco.com>, "Geoffrey Clemm" <gclemm@atria.com>
Message-ID: <NDBBKEBDLFENBJCGFOIJKEILEPAA.LMM@acm.org>
Jim,

I think that trying to do too much "pipelining" in the process
may actually slow you down. I don't think it is appropriate
to wait until "during IESG last call" to respond to the 6-7
issues that have been raised on the mailing list since the
-15 draft of 4/17/01. 

An IESG last call is appropriate when you have a document that
you believe has "resolved known design choices". Not revising
the document now means that you're asking people to review
something when you expect to change it.

The issues I see on the mailing list are:

>  add a DAV:updated-set
> and DAV:ignored-set in the UPDATE response body.

# should use
# <dav:resourcetype> to indicate multiple pieces of type information 

# The response to a VERSION-CONTROL request does not carry
# a Location header similar to CHECKIN (Draft 15).

# Cache-Control: no-cache is not
# needed for the VERSION-CONTROL response. 

#   "A collection has all the properties of a version."
#   should say "A collection version has all the properties of a version."

# both the "checkout" and the "working-resource" features
# introduce a CHECKOUT method that is affected by these properties,
# the fork-control properties should be identified in
# both features.  

although perhaps you have a different (longer) list?

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 14:35:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:41 GMT