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

RE: Submission: deltav subset

From: Peter Raymond <Peter.Raymond@merant.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:32:54 +0100
Message-ID: <20CF1CE11441D411919C0008C7C5A13B02CFAD22@stalmail.eu.merant.com>
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

I agree with Jim that deltav needs some time to see what issues people
find during implementation and to iron out some of the issues we already
know about.

In my opinion the group needs to spend some time looking at existing issues,

working on scenarios, FAQs, clarifications to the specification, sorting out
packaging issues, etc.  Many members of deltav are also in the webdav group,

that specification needs to be revised (to move along the standards track), 
ACL, DASL and advanced collections need to be completed.  This sounds like 
plenty of work to keep the group busy :-)

Over time APIs like the proposed JSR-147 will help get implementations up
running and we can see what issues we find during interop testing.

I would be interested in proposals to extend deltav for:

Change/Issue Management (and simple Workflow),
Event Notification (servers letting clients know when resources/properties
Multi-part mime requests (setting properties and doing an operation in one
Strong typed properties (eg this property only contains dates/numbers/list
of valid values etc).

The larger specs like Change Management could run in a separate working
As WebDAV becomes more widely adopted and the web is used as a writeable
medium I 
expect many users will require some kind of change/task/issue management and
to help them control and manage the changes.
MERANT has been doing some work on Change Management extensions to WebDAV
I would be interested to see how our thoughts on this subject match up (or
not) with 
those of other members of the WebDAV community.

Peter Raymond - MERANT
Principal Architect (PVCS)
Tel: +44 (0)1727 813362
Fax: +44 (0)1727 869804
WWW: http://www.merant.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Amsden [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 23 October 2001 01:41
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: Submission: deltav subset

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
        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? 
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 
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> 
        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 
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 
well within Lisa's rights to hold a BOF at the next IETF with an eye 
creating a new WG, "SDV" (simple Delta V), say. 
- Jim 
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 08:35:01 UTC

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