- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:22:59 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > What's been holding up RFC2518bis is lack of clear consensus -- or a > reliable way of determining it -- on several issues. When we're ready, > we can reintroduce discussion on those issues and see if now there is a > clear consensus or a way to determine one. > > The most high-level issue is whether RFC2518bis is intended to be a > proposed standard or a draft standard. I believe this issue is implied > by the proposal to remove locking from RFC2518 -- a change that big, > even though it's a feature removal, may require recycling at proposed > standard. Lisa, that proposal has been made *because* of the lack of process; not the other way around. Locking has been optional in RFC2518, so there shouldn't be any problem whatsoever having a RFC2518bis-minus-locking going to draft. In fact it'll be easier because locking is the area that needs most attention. That being said, what *is* your position regarding separating locking into a separate document? Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 15:23:47 UTC