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

Minutes for WebDAV WG meeting March 10 2005

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:23:58 -0800
Message-Id: <7656c33fd0e4d5fa9ad21ec9d1c0e8ae@osafoundation.org>
To: webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, minutes@ietf.org

I attempted to send this last week but don't see it in the WG list 
archive so I'm sending again.

For the proceedings: note that there was no presentation material, so 
these minutes complete the record for the proceedings.

------

Agenda
  - Agenda bashing
  - drafts: BIND, Quota, Redirect, 2518bis
  - Meta: charter revision, individual submissions

BIND
Chairs asked if there were any new comments on Bind.  There were none.  
Joe talked about the last call and remaining issues and lack of quorum. 
  The last call happened before the cutoff dates for this IETF, but 
chairs need to figure out if it's appropriate to do an IETF/IESG last 
call.

Anybody here planning on implementing BIND?  It is already implemented 
in SAP Netweaver and Apache Slide.  Julian Reschke is both author of 
the draft and participates on behalf of Netweaver.  There was some 
question on whether the implementors reviewed the document recently 
(but again note that one of the implementors is author of the draft).  
Nobody from the Apache Slide effort was participating as far as we 
could tell.

QUOTA
A new draft of quota was produced recently with some functionality 
removed.  At this point we're waiting for author's feedback.

REDIRECT
Redirect draft: progress waiting on author's implementation (Netweaver 
again) to push forward)

RFC2518BIS
RFC2518bis work: Chairs attempted to find an author with the time and 
focus to go ahead with 2518bis but haven't been successful.  Julian 
noted that he'd volunteered.  Joe pointed out that Julian already has 
plenty on his plate.

META
What is the WG here for and how do we move forward?  What should the 
charter be, or is there enough interest or participation?  If there are 
only a couple individuals doing work, maybe they should be individual 
submissions anyway.  If there isn't enough work and discussion in the 
WG, maybe it doesn't make sense to have this format of discussion. If 
none of the people participating in the discussion, coming to the 
meetings, is this the right format for this.  Scott pointed out that 
Ted was absent this IETF and we'd wait for him to return for decisions 
like this.  We'll take this to list and see if there's any discussion, 
rebuttal
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 02:24:08 GMT

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