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

Re: WGLC draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-12

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:38:11 +0200
Message-ID: <42AE9773.6050908@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> 
> The main flaw in the REDIRECT proposal is that there is not enough in 
> the way of plans to implement it.  Without a set of independent 
> implementors around to review it, I fear it's too complex or has missed 
> key interoperability issues.

I do agree that there seems to be more interest in BIND than REDIRECT. 
On the other hand, I disagree that because of this it can't start at 
"Proposed" (as Jim W. pointed out some time ago in a similar dicussion 
for BIND).

If the working group feels that it's too early to go to "Proposed", I 
think "Experimental" would make sense. It would preserve the work that 
has been done; and if at a later point of time more implementations 
appear, it can be rev'd up.

> To be clear, I do understand that the Web needs and uses redirects, and 
> I see that administrators do create them and that browsers follow 
> redirect status codes.  I'm arguing that there isn't a clear need for 
> interoperable authoring of redirect resources, or if there is, it's not 
> met by this specification.  Implementors might tell us, for example, 
> that they don't need the ability to modify a redirect (why not just 
> recreate) or that they'd prefer something which could handle redirecting 
> URLs via pattern matching to another set of calculated URLs.

The ability to modify was added based on a Last-Call comment in 2000, 
and the WG decided to accept it. See 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-issues.html#lc-58-update>.

> There seems to be one organization that implements REDIRECT authoring in 
> a potentially-interoperable way -- I believe that's Julian's 
> organization. I think that's great, and even better that they're 

It's SAP (first time I've heard it called "Julian's org", but that 
sounds nice :-). As a matter of fact, the Xythos client implements some 
aspects of the protocol as well (discovery but not authorability).

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 08:38:23 GMT

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