W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt

From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:56:50 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1141657010.14567.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 14:07 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Jim Gettys wrote:
> > I did prepare a draft for full standard with all errata of the time
> > included, *and* submitted it, IIRC.
> > 
> > There were no comments at the time, and there were open dependencies, so
> > it could not progress.
> > 
> > I will not bother to prepare another until someone can tell me with a
> > straight face that 1) all the dependencies have made it to full
> > standard, and therefore it won't be a waste of time, 2) at least 2
> 
> I just checked, and the various MIME RFCs are still at "draft", so I 
> don't think that HTTP can progress.
> 
> On the other hand, I think a revised version would be usefuk, even if it 
> needs to stay at the "draft" level.

I don't know if the draft for full standard I did prepare is up on the
web anywhere or not.  It is long since expired.  The dates on some
copies I have kicking around on my laptop is December, 2003, so it was
actually a bit over 2 years ago.  It is a sad statement that the
dependencies are *still* not satisfied.

If it would be useful to people to have it on line (and it doesn't
happen to already be on line), I can dig the draft version submitted out
of my files, but as far as I know, no one has vetted it for errors, so I
don't know if it is better to have it available, or not.  

If the mailing list would like me to do so, I can dig around for it, I
can resubmit it, and if multiple people then *read and verify the
changes*, and think it is ready to recycle at draft without having to
produce another draft of the document (any nits are small enough that
the RFC editor can deal with all the changes required), then you could
get a new draft standard document.  I don't think digging up the draft
is worthwhile unless people promise to read it this time.

I personally won't submit a document like this to the IESG for action
for action *unless and until* I believe other eyes than mine have
actually read the thing. I do not take silence as assent in a case like
this, but follow the M.D. koan: "First, do no harm". 

IMHO, the feedback from several people needs to be: "I really read the
thing, compared with the errata list and mailing list mail, and found
the following typo's" from several people, verifying that I didn't screw
up.  Last time, it was deafening silence, so I did not request the IESG
to recycle the document.

Realistically, paging the right information back in to my head and
resurrecting how to produce the draft, reviewing mailing list traffic,
and doing the leg work to identify all the references that must change,
reviewing IETF process changes and their impact on the document
approaches a week's work (that's what the previous draft cost in time,
as I remember).  It is much more overhead than turning a draft when you
are actively progressing a series of drafts toward a standard.

Fundamentally, the question of me producing another draft other than the
one I prepared in 2003 is moot at the moment, and we found people to
verify it, I could not spend the time to prepare it given my work
schedule; realistically, I can't forsee having time for 18 months.  And
so long as the dependencies have not moved, I won't even consider seeing
if I could squeeze the time somehow.  

If there is a volunteer, someone else could generate a final draft if
need be. Be warned: it is of order a week's work (maybe significantly
less for someone who is actively producing drafts who is up on process
and up on the state of related documents; such a person, familiar with
HTTP, might be able to turn a draft in a day or two's effort).

It would also be good to get it converted from .doc form to XML; when I
looked last, the tools were not up to the job without a lot of hand work
that I didn't have time for then.

	Your testy editor, who likes his draft to be read in
	return for the effort of preparing it,
			Sincerely,
				- Jim Gettys
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 14:58:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:42 GMT