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

Re: Submission: deltav subset

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:41:29 -0400
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF82454D89.FB673FB9-ON85256AEE.00020E8C@raleigh.ibm.com>
Roy,
We're not talking about shutting down DeltaV just yet. As I pointed out 
below, the spec isn't an Internet Standard yet, we still have quite a ways 
to go. However, the current working group has fulfilled its charter and 
its time to update it or create a new one. The work that remains is to see 
how well the spec is adopted, both by clients and servers, and how well we 
met our goals, including interoperability objectives. To do this I think 
we need some "quiet time" where we aren't making substantive changes to 
the spec so developers have something stable to build from. Once we have 
more experience, we should see what work is left to do and establish a new 
charter to address it. This doesn't need to be a continuation of DeltaV, 
but it could be. We have an established community and infrastructure 
(webdav.org and the DeltaV mailing list). Depending on what surfaces, we 
may want to leverage the existing working group for continuity.

In an case, if DeltaV did shutdown, the process would be to hold a BOF at 
an IETF meeting to introduce ideas and gather interest, develop a new 
charter spelling out the activities of a new working group, getting AD 
approval, and doing the work by submitting Internet drafts. This is 
certainly the right way to go for significant new features like change 
management for example. But for expedience, fixing details and 
interoperability problems in the current spec should probably be done in 
the context of the current working group. 




Roy Seto <Roy.Seto@oracle.com>
Sent by: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
10/22/2001 04:55 PM

 
        To:     ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Submission: deltav subset

 

If the WG shuts down, what is the accepted mechanism for hashing out 
protocol usage issues that surface during implementation? 
Roy 
Jim Amsden wrote: 
  
I'm inclined to declare victory on our DeltaV charter and let some servers 
get built on what we have before we start making a lot of immediate 
changes. Of course I would welcome any BOF to determine level of interest 
in extensions, new packages, etc. DeltaV is now firmly on the standards 
track. The next step is to get some implementation and determine 
interoperability issues. If the community fragments immediately on 
different packages that aren't interoperable in meaningful ways, then 
certainly that's good information for the standards process that would 
need to be addressed. But I think the community would benefit from 
attempting to implement the spec as written so we encourage 
interoperability. 
As for shutting down DeltaV, we're only at proposed standard. We could 
consider updating the charter to move to the next stage in the lifecycle. 
I would be happy to entertain suggestions as to the content of such a 
charter, and if there's sufficient interest, we can propose the next set 
of work items to the AD's as either continuation of DeltaV (with a new 
charter), or other working groups focused on more specific tasks. 
 
 
 

"Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu> 
10/18/2001 06:36 PM

        To:        "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Lisa 
Dusseault'" <lisa@xythos.com>, "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com> 
        cc:  
        Subject:        RE: Submission: deltav subset 
 

 
Geoff Clemm writes: 
> I think it is more appropriate to keep it as an 
> individual submission until the working group has had 
> a chance to review/iterate on it. 
This may be true, but IETF policy does say that it is the Chair's 
discretion 
on whether a document is a WG draft or an individual submission. 
I was just pointing out that Jim may cause friction with the ADs if, by 
making a new WG draft, he extends the life of DeltaV when they think it's 
close to being shut down. I imagine they are keen to avoid another WebDAV 
:-) 
But, even if Jim does decide that it should not be a new draft, it would 
be 
well within Lisa's rights to hold a BOF at the next IETF with an eye 
towards 
creating a new WG, "SDV" (simple Delta V), say. 
- Jim 
 
 
 
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 20:42:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:42 GMT