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

RE: Submission: deltav subset

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:11:13 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBKJABLJNMLJELONBKCEFPDBAA.stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
I think the definition of this deltav subset is very much needed
and that Lisa has made a very good start with it. To be more specific:

- Our server falls (from deltav point of view) into the same group
  as sharemation does: linear versioning on resources, no versioning
  on collections. There is definitly a need for such servers.
- DeltaV is so rich (and for good reasons) that as an implementor
  you have to make quite a lot of choices. The definition of a subset
  would give guidance in this process and ensure interoperability.
  Without such a definition, I see interworking between deltav
  servers and clients as a much longer and more painful process
  than it needs to be.


> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> I'll explain some of the background to this message, since I started the
> thread below its cc' list was expanded.  Initially, I asked Jim
> Amsden if he
> wanted a new deltav-related internet-draft to be a working group
> draft or an
> individual submission.  This explains the history and reasons
> behind the new
> internet-draft...
> I've talked to various people in the last few months, both those involved
> directly in the DeltaV WG and those mostly involved in WebDAV but
> keeping an
> eye on DeltaV.  A common theme has been some uncertainty what features
> should be implemented for simple versioning, in software not intended for
> source control but just for web authoring or document management.  The
> existing packages defined in DeltaV are a good start, but there's
> still lot
> of possible variation in how to implement a DeltaV server or client even
> once a package has been chosen.
> Thus, I've been working on a document to make it easier for simple WebDAV
> authoring clients to implement DeltaV, by selecting a number of
> features and
> a number of simplifications that a server can make.  If a server
> advertises
> these simplifications, then the client's job is much easier (the client
> won't have to worry about forking, multiple checkouts, older versions
> getting checked out, or older versions being targetted).  Both the server
> and the client can still be DeltaV compatible.
> I've posted the initial draft on
> http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav, and it should soon be
> available on the IETF site as well.  I'm very much interested in hearing
> comments, suggestions, etc.  Much thanks to Peter Raymond, Alan Kent and
> Mark Hale for their initial comments.
> Lisa
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
> Sent: October 18, 2001 4:35 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Submission: deltav subset
> 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 Tuesday, 23 October 2001 04:10:11 UTC

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