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


From: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:19:35 +0100
To: "'DeltaV'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF165C6CA1.02D4CBF1-ON80256ABF.002CB814@portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

"John Hall" <johnhall@xythos.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:25 PM
> To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'DeltaV'
> Subject: RE: REPORTS
> Tim, I have an email folder where I keep all the message
> traffic.  I do not have that message.  I have a message where
> you replied on 8/14/01, but I don't have the original.  I
> don't know what could have happened to it.

Sorry, can't help you there<g>

> This is NOT a simple recursion, at least not on my server.

I'm not implying that it is, but reporting my view of the opinion expressed
in the meeting.

> Version-tree is just a propfind -- for client and server.
> Expand-property is a complete rewrite -- for client and
> server.  I probably spent an hour or two on version-tree, and
> a client would need less.  Expand-property is at least 2
> orders of magnitude more difficult (at least on my server).

Ok, but with the greatest respect that is not a good enough reason to
object to the spec.  Clearly it is technically possible becuase a number of
others have either already implemented it without too much pain, or did not
object on the grounds of technical difficulty.

> I do know you will find several refereneces to
> expand-property by me -- all indicating that there was
> absolutely no plans for implementation of that optional
> report in my server.  I don't see how moving this can be
> considered 'by consensus'.

There were no objections raised in the meeting or when the minutes were
published.  I'd consider that a consensus.

From RFC2418 "Working Group Guidelines":

'The core rule for operation is that acceptance or agreement is achieved
via working group "rough consensus".'

'Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus"
and 99% is better than rough.'

> It was considered OPTIONAL before, it still should be.  At a
> minimum, change the SHOULD to a MAY.

How does this help?  They are both imply the functionality is optional.

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 04:51:15 UTC

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