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

Re: Summary of "working group meeting"

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:15:13 -0800
Message-Id: <42bdce9975e765247b943f6dd8095efb@osafoundation.org>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, ejw@soe.ucsc.edu
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Hi Julian,

I know you think that there are issues remaining on Quota as well as no  
issues remaining on Bind.  I do not agree with you on Bind, and I am  
not sure that there are open issues on Quota worth pursuing.  Brian has  
done a slow but decent job of responding to the issues you've raised  
and if he followed your approach, then he would simply declare the rest  
of them closed.  Are you willing to compromise on any of the issues  
you've raised on Quota in order to see it completed?  Can you get other  
people to review Quota and either agree with your open issues or state  
that there are no blocking issues?

I agree this working group needs good leadership but it also needs  
volunteers -- more than just two or three volunteers to do the work of  
writing and reviewing -- and we need some more compromises.  I  
apologize again that we did not have an agenda for the WG meeting in  
Minneapolis, but I will point out again that we got no suggestions for  
the agenda until the week before the meeting.  Previous meetings which  
were better organized still had attendance problems and a poor record  
of accomplishing any progress. For example, in Washington we had the  
same issues we have today, the same few people participating.  We could  
have cancelled the Minneapolis meeting rather than create an agenda,  
but as for myself, I wanted to give the WG one last chance for parties  
to get together and communicate and compromise.

Lisa

On Mar 17, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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 19:16:28 GMT

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