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

RE: WebDAV Working Group Meeting

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:29:46 -0700
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <NDBBIKLAGLCOPGKGADOJMEIICFAA.ejw@ics.uci.edu>

Well, I was off-net for several weeks when this first came up, and am only
now at the point where I can give it some attention. *sigh*

> 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.

Well, Yaron's comment is well-taken: these issues can all be discussed on
the mailing list.  So, in the next few messages, I'll be starting threads on
several of these issues -- I look forward to list discussion on them.

- Jim

>
> > 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 Friday, 24 September 1999 14:33:37 GMT

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