W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Last-calling draft-reschke-webdav-property-datatypes-07, Re: Request for feedback: WebDAV property datatype draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:19:14 +0200
Message-ID: <41443EC2.9060808@gmx.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
CC: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org


so far I haven't received any feedback on the content of the latest 
property datatypes draft (announcement in [1], TXT and HTML versions at 
[2] and [3]).

I'm therefore last-calling this draft, with the goal of submitting a 
minimally revised version (see below) for publication as "Experimental 
RFC" in two weeks from now.

Quoting from "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3" 
(<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt>), section 4.2.1:

    4.2.1  Experimental

    The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
    is part of some research or development effort.  Such a specification
    is published for the general information of the Internet technical
    community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
    editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
    adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).  An
    Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
    research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
    Group, or it may be an individual contribution.

I think that this protocol extension falls under this definition; the 
WebDAV working group currently doesn't seem to plan working on it 
itself, but the protocol is already implemented by different vendors, 
and thus it's a good thing to have it documented and published. 
Furthermore, it hasn't changed significantly since it was proposed first 
in August 2001. Also, the IETF is the right place to do this as it 
extends another IETF protocol (RFC2518).

If the working group at a later point decides to work on property 
datatypes itself, it can use the document as a basis (with real world 
deployment), or it can still decide to define something completely 

Edits continue on the "latest" version ([4]). Right now I'm only 
planning to simplify the subsection nesting (which really is only an 
artefact from the time when the draft also spoke about two other 
features, property flags and displayname information).

Best regards, Julian

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0108.html>

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Sunday, 12 September 2004 12:19:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:30 UTC