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

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

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 16:10:37 -0700
Message-Id: <a8886cd9f21ab4f5db8500241b3dea53@osafoundation.org>
Cc: "'webdav' WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Hi Julian,

In WG meeting notes posted March 9 2004   
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JanMar/0083>:

"Redirect: No major issues -- but no recent activity.  OTOH, there may  
not be many implementors.  Perhaps we can last call and require a  
minimum # of reviews."

I didn't press the issue because I recalled it being your stated  
intention that you preferred to finish Binding first.   Then on April 8  
2004  
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004AprJun/ 
0037.html> you sent revision 07 of Redirect and said:

"This draft reflects the current state and is work-in-progress."

Do you consider Redirect to not be a work-in-progress any more?  If so,  
do you have diffs (from 06, perhaps) handy so we can gauge the extent  
of changes?  Once we resolve the status of the WG, I'd support a  
last-call with a minimum # of reviews solicited.

Lisa

On May 27, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> ...
>>>> we don't have the energy as a WG to finish that properly, it's my   
>>>> opinion that we could instead bring  BIND immediately to submission  
>>>>  as an Informative RFC, where it would be an exemplary and   
>>>> high-quality example of that class.
>>>
>>>
>>> That would indeed be preferrable to doing nothing at all (although,   
>>> shouldn't it be "Experimental" instead???); however I personally  
>>> think  that the BIND spec really should be submitted for publication  
>>> as  "Proposed" (in contrast to REDIRECT which *currently* seems to  
>>> only  have one implementation).
>> Sorry; you're right, Experimental would probably be better.  REDIRECT  
>>  could also go to experimental immediately.
>
> I'd prefer it to go to "Proposed" (that seems in line with the  
> Standards Process). Anyway, if you feel it's done, why don't you start  
> a WG last call for it?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Saturday, 28 May 2005 23:10:54 GMT

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