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

Re: RFC2518bis (process)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:04:46 +0200
Message-ID: <43365A1E.3010005@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> Sure, no problem.
> 
>  - I last published RFC2518bis a couple months ago: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/idindex.cgi?command=id_detail&id=8360.  
> I don't recall seeing any comments.

Actually I was waiting that the WG comes to agreement about how we do 
the issue tracking. It's a bit pointless to review drafts if there's no 
process how to deal with the comments.

How about re-starting work on those issues that are on the two issue 
lists we have (<http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm> and 
<http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=WebDAV-RFC2518-bis>) 
and using one of the two as the current issue tracker (as suggested by 
Elias and myself)?

> ...
>  - I've been hunting around for interoperability documentation -- 
> because we did do two interop tests -- but we don't seem to have that 
> available now (perhaps it was not intended to be public outside the 
> interops anyway).  We never did get somebody to volunteer to collect 
> interop data or format that for the IESG 
> (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/).
> 
> What are other peoples' thoughts about how to do this now?

That's probably a major problem.

Without that kind of information, we won't be able to progress to the 
next standards level, right?

As far as I am concerned, the importance of a revised version of RFC2518 
is much higher than actually moving to Draft Standard, thus if we these 
two goals conflict (time, interop experience with changes introduced 
since RFC2518) we should IMHO sacrifice the latter one.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 25 September 2005 08:05:02 GMT

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