W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: OPTIONS * (Was: RE: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-00)

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:23:27 -0500
To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OF53CC5596.E5FED19A-ON85256DE8.007FA124-85256DE8.00807DA2@us.ibm.com>

Julian wrote on 11/24/2003 03:34:29 PM:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > I appreciate your attempts to help gain consensus.  It is my opinion,
> > and supported by IETF practice in many working groups and by RFC 3160,
> > (The Tao of IETF) that publishing I-Ds with specific new proposals to 
> > discuss is a useful way to achieve consensus:
> 
> Yes. I just wish it would be easier to do that for RFC2518bis. 
> Up-to-date issues/change lists would really help. The only way to spot 
> this change is indeed to diff the TXT versions of the internet drafts. 
> Does it really have to be that hard???

I vigorously agree with Julian here.  Each significant change (addition,
deletion, modification) to RFC2518bis should be preceded by an
email with that proposed change, and then should be documented in the 
issues
list with a pointer to that email message(and marked as OPEN, until
the change has been accepted by consensus, or at least, if no objections
have been raised in a reasonable period of time).

A new revision of the I-D is a good way to see the proposed change in
context, but just publishing the draft is not an effective way to
announce or achieve consensus on a set of changes.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Monday, 24 November 2003 18:24:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT