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

Re: Summary of "working group meeting"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:52:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4239D1F3.3060906@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: ejw@soe.ucsc.edu, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> On Mar 16, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> 
>> My personal feeling is that this working group needs firm direction 
>> from its
>> chairs on what to work on next, and it also needs commitment to get
>> completed drafts through the approval process. I've volunteered to 
>> work on
>> the bind specification to get it to RFC status. Beyond this, the most
>> constructive step is to determine which draft to work on next.
> 
> 
> Hi Jim,  this is great.  I appreciate your willingness to work on this 
> and look forward to seeing your draft.  The other thing we'll need to 

What kind of draft are you expecting? The current draft has passed the 
working group last-call, and as far as I can tell, there are no open 
issues (according to the definition in Joe's last call plan).

> finish Bind is a couple of serious reviews.

This spec has been reviewed so many times that it will be hard to find 
any new reviewer.

- First, it has gone through a working group last call back in 2000 (?)

- Then, in 2003, once Geoff Clemm had picked it up again, it has been 
reviewed and commented on by the current implementors (SAP Netweaver, 
Apache/Slide); see messages around 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JulSep/0132.html>.

- Then, when approaching last-call, it has been discussed again and 
again on the mailing list, culminating with the last call this January.

As far as I can tell, this draft clearly represents WG consensus *and* 
running code, and there's absolutely no reason not to submit it.

Anyway, could you please also comment on Jim's:

"My personal feeling is that this working group needs firm direction 
from its chairs on what to work on next, and it also needs commitment to 
get completed drafts through the approval process."


>> My vote is for the quota protocol, since we have at least two very
>> interested implementors who want to see this completed.
> 
> 
> That sounds good to me, also because the quota protocol is quite 
> simple.  Again, we need a couple reviews to finish this one off.   Jim 
> Luther, are you still out there?  With your early involvement in quota, 
> it would be great to have a review now, even if there are no design 
> issues. (At this point, finding nits is also needed).  Anybody else?

If we're really interested in that spec, we should ask the authors to 
comment on the feedback that came in for the previous draft, to resolve 
the remaining issues and to prepare a new draft for working-group last call.



Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 18:53:14 GMT

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