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

Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:48:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4360CCB3.7060000@gmx.de>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> ...
> There is a fine line here. Someone skill in the art should be able to
> correctly implement this by just reading the Spec and the documents it
> normatively references. That does not mean we should right a basic tutorial
> on how it all works or the sort of material that might be covered in WebDAV
> book. It's a fine line to draw, but I tend to ask myself, if your average
> implementer has a 20% chance of doing the wrong thing, you probably need
> more advice or notes to keep them on the right path.

a) Yes, but...:

b) Even if it's not about RFC2518 itself, but a normatively referenced 
spec? That is, do explanations/clarifications for HTTP belong into 
RFC2518bis, or RFC2616bis?

> That is my somewhat philosophic answer, however, I have a far more pragmatic
> thing you should keep in mind. The IESG has to read this, and if it makes no
> sense to them, pain and suffering will ensue. This does not mean just the
> apps ADs with an amazing background in the area has to read it, it means
> that someone from a completely different area (say security) has to read it,
> and understand it well enough to evaluate if it has significant issues. And
> they are unlikely to read FAQs, Blogs etc because they are too busy.

Yes, and if information is *needed*, it should be in the spec.

On the other hand, we're revising a spec that already has been accepted 
once. I would think it would make a lot of sense to keep changes to the 
minimum needed to achieve our goals. As a matter of fact, RFC2518 has 
had more contributors and reviewers than we can ever hope to find for 
RFC2518bis, so my proposal is to avoid changes unless they clearly 
enhance the spec.

> In the case you are taking about here, I have no idea what the right line is
> and I'm not supporting Lisa's or Julian's or anyone else opinion on it. I'm
> just pointing out that this is not black or white but is one of the many
> things where the WG will have to find some sort of reasonable balance.

Back to this issue:

1) I'm not aware of any interop problems.

2) I'm not aware of anybody having asked about this.

3) I don't see any benefit in RFC2518bis making statements about this, 
even if we *did* agree on what to say.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 12:49:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:33 UTC