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

RE: Splitting off core: where we stand

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:35:07 -0800
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIOEMICIAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
> Jim forgot Edgar Schwarz and Preston Bannister's messages (both dated
> 2/3/2001), both of whom voted for submitting the combined document to
> the IESG.

Sorry about that -- I tried to be as thorough as possible.

Some quick points:

(a) I think the results of the straw poll concerning review coverage will
let us know whether, at minimum, further review work needs to take place on
the options.  If it turns out that they have seen sufficient review, then
I'm OK with sending the core and options off at the same time, independent
of how they are packaged.

(b) One of the more compelling arguments for splitting core from non-core is
that a smaller, core specification is likely to progress to RFC faster than
one large document.  The next step beyond this is for the protocol to go
through review by the Application Area Director(s), and, being human beings,
they will review a small document faster than a large one. RFC 2518 took 8
months to be reviewed, and IPP took a full year.  When do you want your RFC
number?

(c) Another argument is the core parts will likely progress to Draft
standard status faster than the options will, since there will be more
interoperable implementations.  In this argument, what happens now is not
nearly as important as a year from now, when it's time to revise for going
from Proposed to Draft.

Oh, and on the phone a month ago, Yaron expressed a desire for core to be
split off, and I suspect the intent of Mark Hale's email starting his ballot
was a desire to split off core.  So add 1 split, and 1 more maybe to the
"split" column ;-)  Seriously, the only clear indication from this is the WG
is pretty evenly divided (I won't use the word "split") on this issue.

- Jim

PS - I still think the paper plane argument has some merit... ;-)
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 20:35:48 GMT

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