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

Re: RFC2518bis (process)

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:00:35 -0400
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF3DEA6013.DAB34887-ON85257088.005D62A1-85257088.005D7151@us.ibm.com>
I agree completely with the contents of Cullen's big red alert.

Cheers,
Geoff

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote on 09/26/2005 12:56:06 PM:

> 
> Given the current state of collection of interop results and planning 
for
> what needs to be collected, this sounds like the right path to me. I'll 
take
> this as consensus unless I hear some objections.
> 
> <big red alert warning>
> 
> Just because we are recycling at proposed, we should not use this as an
> excuse to put more stuff in. Let's document what people are doing and 
the
> key things they need and we will be that much closer to draft. If there 
are
> parts no one uses or needs, we can take them out. From a what goes in 
this
> document point of view, let's keep thinking about our goal is to get to
> draft not greatly expand the protocol. We can use *other* RFCs to expand 
the
> protocol. 
> 
> <\alert>
> 
> Cullen
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/25/05 5:07 AM, "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> 
wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I agree with Julian on this.
> > 
> > Cheers, 
> > Geoff 
> > 
> > Julian wrote on 09/25/2005 04:04:46 AM:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 17:01:04 GMT

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