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

RE: Process for moving to Proposed Standard

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 21:54:00 +0100
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <80256A56.0072DA38.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

"Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> 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.

Agreed -- though I suspect this will be uncontrovertial.

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

Agreed -- ideally it would be sent to the WebDAV WG so that it may apply to
ACLs and friends equally well.

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

I believe that this was agreed as a non-issue, or rather that Stefan wanted
to know when VERSION-CONTROL had affected a resource and when it had not.

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

Again, a trivial change that I believe will be non-controvertial.

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

Editorial change.

> # 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.

Editorial change.

> although perhaps you have a different (longer) list?

I'm kicking myself for not keeping the list, but I guess I was expecting
Geoff to do so.  I have asked him to make it generally available as I
believe that there are other issues that were raised (but don't ask me to
name them without searching<g>)

Your point is well taken, but I don't think it is as bad as you make out.

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 16:55:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC