W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: WG process (was Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt)

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:54:44 -0700
Message-Id: <200505262254.j4QMslxN019962@services.cse.ucsc.edu>
To: "''webdav' WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Cc: <hardie@qualcomm.com>

RFC 2026, which as near as I can tell is still the guiding process document
for the IETF (I am unable to find another RFC which explicitly obsoletes
2026), in Section 4.1.1 states:

   A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
   known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
   significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
   interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
   might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
   before it advances.

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
   designation.


It is my understanding that the BIND specification is "generally stable",
that it has indeed "resolved known design choices", is well-understood
within the community of activity WG participants, has received numerous
reviews over its 5+ year lifetime (and many reviews of its current, final
form), and is considered by many in the community to be a valuable
specification.

I will note that even though the IETF does not require implementation or
operational experience, it is my understanding that Julian Reschke has
implemented this specification. It would not surprise me if others have as
well.

I will also note that RFC 2026 explicitly states (section 4.1.1):

   Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
   specifications.  It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
   experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.

I therefore request that the Chairs of this Working Group discharge their
duty, as described in Section 6.1.1 of RFC 2026:

   A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
   Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
   copied to the IETF Secretariat...

That is, please either recommend the specification to the Area Director, and
copy it to the Secretariat, or provide a detailed process specifying actions
that must be taken by the document editors and/or the Working Group (and
justification from RFC 2026 for these actions) for this to happen. 

- Jim

> There may not be a way to bring this spec to proposed under 
> the current arrangement.  One of the options I've discussed 
> with Ted Hardie and others has been whether it would be 
> possible to form a new WG from scratch to work on WebDAV 
> extensions.  Sometimes with a new WG, there's a great 
> opportunity to get commitments from new volunteers, all 
> starting from the same position and not feeling like they 
> have to work to come up to speed with an existing WG.  It's 
> also an opportunity to remix roles, and to have fresh 
> discussions about what the priorities are.
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 22:54:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:08 GMT