W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: WebDAV Working Group Meeting

From: Yaron Goland (Exchange) <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:11:15 -0700
Message-ID: <078292D50C98D2118D090008C7E9C6A603C965A0@STAY.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'jamsden@us.ibm.com'" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, paf@swip.net
General comment: Why do we need a meeting for this? This sounds like great
material for an e-mail list and it will have the extra added benefit of
allowing everyone to participate. I don't know about you folks but NC is
REALLY far away from where I am.

> 1. Discuss creating a WebDAV support organization ("webdav.org")

But, it already exists. http://webdav.org

> 2. Discuss the future of the WebDAV effort
> 
> With the WG closing soon, we should determine if is a need to 
> create a new WG
> (DAVEXT, say) for known extensions (access control, schemas, 
> etc.). What work
> items should be addressed by this new WG?

Individual submissions sound fine to me. No need to clutter up the IETF with
a whole bunch of WGs for every effort under the sun. If an effort gets big
enough then it can go for WG status.
 
> 3. Organizing an interoperability event

Why? I know bake offs are popular but WebDAV seems to have been having a
continual back off for months now just by having folks put their
implementations on the net. Unless I have seriously missed something it
seems to work damn well.

> 4. Moving RFC 2518 to Draft Standard

Personally, I would like to see this held off for at least a year. I think
it was a huge mistake for HTTP/1.1 to push to draft status long before there
was any real experience with the protocol. Except for a few propeller head
implementations there wasn't a single full featured commercial HTTP/1.1
client or proxy implementation available when HTTP/1.1 started going to
draft status. The end result is that RFC 2616 added very little value and a
lot of confusion. I think we should take this as a model of what not to do.
Instead we should wait until a number of implementations, both on the client
and server side, are widely deployed and we get some real world experience.
That has not happened yet, not even close.
 
> 5. Final review on the Advanced Collections specifications

The only relevant review of the AC draft is, of course, on the e-mail list
but I can certainly appreciate why you would want to do this at a meeting.
However I think we have enough time at the IETF for this.

> 6. Discuss/review/work on the Access Control specification

Indeed, this has been a real problem. I am going to get out a new version of
the ACL draft which I think basically has it right, it just needs some clean
up. Comments are always welcome. If anyone has the meeting notes for the
Florida ACL chat please put up a link, I think the discussion was extremely
informative as to why there hasn't been a lot of progress on ACLs.

> 7. Review/work on DASL (DAV Searching and Locating)

Huh? Isn't that why we have a DASL WG?
 
> 8. Discussion/review/work on the Delta-V protocol

How about we first get a charter. But, that having been said, a meeting on
Delta-V would obviously be very useful.

> 
> IBM is considering hosting this meeting at our Research 
> Triangle Park facility
> in RTP NC during the week of October 25. 

Sigh... I wish we could do this after the IETF. The week of Oct 20th is
pretty bad for me. But of course, that is just me.

> We would like some 
> feedback to see if
> there is sufficient interest, additional agenda items, and an 
> indication of how
> may working group members would be interested in attending. 
> If there is
> sufficient interest and attendance, we will petition the area 
> directors for
> permission to schedule the meeting. Thank you for you 
> continued interest in
> WebDAV.

ADs do not give permission to schedule meetings outside the IETF. Why would
they? The only place you can do anything "on the record" is on the e-mail
list. The IETF meetings are just a convenience to help the mailing lists
better function and meetings outside of the IETF meetings are completely
outside the purview of the IETF. The only time the IETF gets involved with
meetings held completely outside the IETF process is if those meetings start
being where real work is done to the detriment of the mailing list. In that
case the ADs will step in. A classic example of what not to do would be the
IPP effort.

Either way, unless Keith has changed his mind, as of the end of this month
WebDAV is closed. There is no more WebDAV, there are no more meetings. That
doesn't mean you shouldn't have meetings on ACLs and on Delta-V. In fact, by
the next IETF Delta-V should be a WG (Keith?). I know we have had ACL
meetings but I don't know if we ever had a BOF.

> 
> Sent by Jim Amsden and Jim Whitehead
> 

			Send by Yaron
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 1999 21:11:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:51 GMT