W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:57:39 -0700
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011101c25f34$7f95b150$b701a8c0@xythoslap>

I replied in private mail, but again, here's the relevant standards on
this issue:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
"The Internet-Drafts directories are available to provide authors with
the ability to distribute and solicit comments on documents they may
eventually submit to the IESG for publication as an RFC."

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt;
" During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
   document are made available for informal review and comment by
   placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is
   replicated on a number of Internet hosts.  This makes an evolving
   working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating
   the process of review and revision."

I won't take a stand on whether it was wrong of the ACL editors to
circulate drafts in such a manner that you had to be a mailing list
member in order to know there was new text to look at.  It's a grey
area, because when multiple authors are working on a new document, it's
important to be able to share it.  

I firmly believe that it is correct for a draft to go to the IETF
Internet-Draft repository when it is circulated to the entire WG mailing
list.  I would be happy to have Patrick, Ned or Harald correct me on
this.

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt
> 
> Lisa,
> 
> it's just that I think a *lot* of bad mood could be avoided if there
was a
> time window between edits on the I-D and the actual submission. As you
> have
> seen, many of the changes you made *are* controversial. So maybe the
> approach the WG is/was using for the ACL draft makes more sense
(submit
> when
> stable instead of submit when new)?
> 
> Julian
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:44 PM
> > To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt
> >
> >
> >
> > > but I really have a problem with the process here. Why is the I-D
> > > submitted
> > > *before* there is consensus on the changes?
> > >
> > To be clear, I thought that for all the issues in the draft, either:
> >  - they weren't controversial,
> >  - OR they were controversial but consensus (not unanimity) was
close.
> >
> > And in any case, it's the exact wording that needs to be seen to
> > determine real consensus.  When I-D's are published, it's correct to
> > publish them to the I-D repository, rather than just circulate them
on
> > the list.  If we were only to circulate a RFC2518-bis text document
on
> > the DAV list, then non-list-members wouldn't have the same awareness
and
> > accessibility to the document that they have if documents are
published
> > correctly.
> >
> > Also, I thought this goes without saying, but nobody is implying
that
> > this I-D is anywhere ready for WG last call.  There are major
unresolved
> > issues.
> >
> > We always encourage discussion and if desired straw polls on the
list.
> >
> > lisa
> >
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 12:58:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT