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

You are correct that I intended to suggest that the current draft be
adopted as a Draft Standard, to guide implementations.

Sorry about the ambiguous wording, and thanks for the clarification!

Cheers,
Geoff

Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> wrote on 06/16/2005 12:37:49 PM:

> At 8:17 AM -0400 6/16/05, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> >
> >So unless there are some actual technical problems with the REDIRECT
> >draft, I believe the current REDIRECT draft should go to "Proposed",
> >to address the interoperability in this area that already has arisen
> >due to the lack of a standard for how to author redirect references.
> >
> >In this case, since there aren't any subtle technical issues/obstacles
> >to be addressed, and we just need a common convention, I think it is
> >appropriate for the draft standard to drive the implementations, rather
> >than the other way round.
> 
> Just as a quick clarification, am I right that you mean you want
> the current draft, as a Proposed Standard, to guide implementations?
> Because of the usual draft-vs.-Draft Standard, I could read your
> message to mean "wait until the Draft Standard conditions are met",
> and it seems safer to confirm your intent.
>          regards,
>             Ted Hardie