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

RE: Process for moving to Proposed Standard

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 18:36:23 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1018E2414@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <LMM@acm.org>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Cc: ned@innosoft.com, paf@cisco.com
I've followed Larry's advice, and posted a 15.1 working draft
to the web site.  This contains the editorial changes suggested
since the 15 draft was submitted (and a section enumerating these
changes), as well as an "issues list" (with proposed resolutions
of those issues).  (The issues Larry enumerated below appear in
either the changes list or the issues list).

<http://www.webdav.org/deltav/protocol/draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-15.1.htm
>

Cheers,
Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org]

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?
Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 18:37:45 GMT

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