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

Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:51:28 +0100
Message-ID: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Hi,

unfortunately, there's still no feedback on whether there actually is a 
WG meeting in Minneapolis (no announcement, no agenda).

In case it *does* take place, here are the details:

Time: 2005-03-09T15:00:00Z (9am local time) (ics: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/webdav.ics>

Room: Duluth

Text confererencing instructions: <http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html>

Audio cast: <http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf626.m3u> (see 
<http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/> for technical information).

Below is a list of topics I'd like to see discussed.

Best regards, Julian


-- snip --



Proposal for a WebDAV WG meeting agenda

I think we need to have a meta-discussion on how the working group 
currently operates; and also discuss current technical issues with drafts.


A. Meta

The charter (<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/webdav-charter.html>) 
has been revised just a year ago and we already have missed all milestones.

A1. What are the reasons for the apparent inability to ship specs in time?

A2. Do we need to re-adjust the charter (again)?

A3. Is the Working Group still able to fulfill it's goals, or would it 
make more sense to let the individual spec authors proceed with their 
work outside an IETF working group (for instance, the revision to 
RFC2396 was done that way)?


B. Technical Issues

B1. BIND

As far as I can tell, WG last-call has finished, and the issues that 
were raised after end of last-call do not qualify as blockers as they 
have been answered with no feedback and have no votes on them. Thus, 
draft 11 should have been sent to the IETF for publication (see 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0278.html>).

B2. QUOTA

This one has been drastically simplified and thus only needs very minor 
edits for WG last-call. If the WG is really interested in getting it out 
of the door, the author(s) and the active mailing list members should 
cooperate to get the remaining issues resolved (last issues list: 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0194.html>).

B3. REDIRECT

As far as I can tell, we (greenbytes) are the only ones actively working 
on this (both spec and implementation). I think the spec is very close 
to be finished; but I would prefer to have it fully implemented before 
proceeding.

B4. RFC2518bis vs separate locking document

The latest draft of RFC2518bis has expired and I haven't seen any 
activity on it for a long time. A statement from the authors would be 
appreciated.

Over a year ago I suggested an alternative approach: split RFC2518 base 
and locking protocol, then work on RFC2518bis (RFC2518 minus locking) 
and a separate locking document in parallel. RFC2518bis could probably 
be published as Draft Standard, while LOCKING (which has most of the 
changes) would need to re-start as Proposed Standard. The proposed 
LOCKING document is almost done, and could be finished with the backing 
of the WG in just a few weeks (see latest edits at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-locking-latest.html>). 
I hereby ask the Working Group chairs to either fix the apparent process 
issues with RFC2518bis, or to go with the proposal made by me.

B5. PROPERTY DATATYPES

The latest draft
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-property-datatypes-08.html>) 
has been submitted in September 2004 to the RFC Editor for publication 
as an Experimental RFC (see status at
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#reschke-webdav-property-datatypes>).

In the meantime I have learned that it's unlikely to be processed (which 
doesn't mean published) any time soon; this part of the RFC Editor's 
publication queue more or less is stalled. Alternatives to waiting (at 
least another year if things progress the same way as in the last 
months) are (a) making this a WG work item or (b) submitting it to our 
Area Director. As this draft describes both the consensus of the WG (as 
far as I can tell) *and* running and deployed code, (b) seems to be very 
attractive.
Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 20:47:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT