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

Re: RFC2518bis, was: BIND and live property value consistency

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:22:00 +0200
Message-ID: <42D0DAA8.3060907@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:20:24 -0700, Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
> 
>>
>> Let's rephrase that: you say that you think you have the editor role 
>> for  RFC2518bis. In case you'd be starting to work on it again, where 
>> would  you look for the next to-do item?
>>
> 
> I am starting work on it again, and I'm reviewing the latest draft to 
> see  which features still remain that haven't had demonstrated 
> implementation  and interoperability.  I figured I'd catch up with the 
> main to-do list  once it had been updated or regenerated.

If I understand you right, you will not update (and keep up-to-date) at 
least one of the two issues lists we have?

Some more thoughts about how I think we need to proceed with RFC2518bis:

- Any change compared to RFC2518 (unless really strictly editorial) 
needs to have a well-understood issue description; and a WG consensus 
for changing it.

- Consequently, changes in the latest draft that can't be traced to one 
of these will need to be backed out.

- RFC2518bis needs to have a complete appendix listing all non-editorial 
changes compared to RFC2518.

- If we think that RFC2518 contains stuff for which there is no 
demonstrated interoperability, we should add that to the issues list as 
action item.

Finally,

- we go through the issues list until all issues are closed (where 
"closed" can also mean that the WG just states that it was unable to 
come up with a resolution)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2005 08:22:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:09 GMT