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

RE: Comments

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:45:13 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B101C2CE8F@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
- Thanks for catching the 7.5 typo ... will fix.

- Concerning the statement about working-resource and
workspace options, I'm happy to delete this sentence,
since I don't see that it improves interoperability,
and could incorrectly lead a reader to believe that
the options are inconsistent.  So I'll delete this sentence
unless anyone objects.

- As for the complexity of the protocol, if there is
something that you would like to see addressed before
we send the protocol to the IESG for "proposed standard"
status, please identify the specific issue during the
working group last call period (i.e. before 2/1/01).
It is my belief that the complexity issues have been
adequately addressed by clearly identifying the part
of the document that should be read by those only 
interested in "core" versioning functionality.  Each of
the options consist of functionality that is currently
supported by multiple versioning repositories, and
therefore it significantly contributes to interoperability
to provide an option that standardizes access
to that functionality.

Cheers,
Geoff
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark A. Hale [mailto:mark.hale@interwoven.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:21 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Comments


Some additional comments:

- Thank you for remembering to add Section 7.5.  I think 
  that "is" should be "its".

- I disagree with the following statement in Section 1:  

	"The exception is the working-resource and workspace 
	options.  These provide the same logical functionality 
	but with significantly different client/server 
	performance/complexity tradeoffs.  It is expected that 
	only a limited number of servers will support both the 
	working-resource and the workspace options."   

  Working-resources are created when versions are checked out.  
  A workspace resource is a collection whose members are related
  version-controlled and non-version-controlled resources.  These
  are not the same logical functionality. 

  Also, a working-resource can have a workspace property which
  does not make it logically orthogonal to a workspace in the
  context of the discussion in section 1.

  My suggestion is to end section 1 with the existing statement
  that the specification options are designed to be logically 
  orthogonal.  
  
- Overall the specification has the necessary components and I 
  have provided input to ensure its completeness.  I do go back 
  to a comment posted on the list a week or two about the 
  specification's complexity.  As I review the specification 
  now, I do agree and feel that the specification is 
  complex.  I would like to see complexity revisited in 
  Minneapolis as an action item.



	Thanks,

	Mark
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 00:46:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT