W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Draft -16 out now

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:54:14 -0800
Message-Id: <p06240602c1923058fcab@[10.0.1.7]>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

For some reason, I am only seeing Julian's replies to Cullen; this reply
is really to Cullen, but applies to the whole thread.
At 11:29 AM +0100 11/28/06, Julian Reschke wrote:
>Cullen Jennings schrieb:
>>
>>Ok - I see your point. At this point, my primary goal is getting a document that is better than RFC 2518 off to the IESG.

I'm glad that this issue seems to have been so quickly resolved, and I hope others
can comment about whether the new text is okay.  But I think folks should really
be narrowing focus at this point.  This effort has been around for a long time, and
we agreed nearly a year ago to get this document through the last hump and out
the door.  The chair and document author both getting put on the IESG at the
same time pulled critical energy from the group during what should have been
its final clean-up.   Since that point, we have had only occasional bursts of energy,
and some of that has focused on areas that were not truly core to the work
(like the WEBDAV capabilities in HTML thread Jim raised--these are interesting,
but not chartered work).

I believe that we have had strong consensus for a long time to replace RFC 2518,
and I think the focus at this point has to narrow to places where the current document
isn't as clear as 2518.  Given the traffic since the WGLC on -14 back in February,
I just don't see the energy to take on more at this point.  I think putting the document
in front of the larger community and acknowledging that it isn't  perfect but
is a needed improvement is the way to go.

If the group cannot do that in a short period of time, I would have to seriously
consider closing it.  The amount of energy here would clearly not justify a new
working group; this one has continued despite that participation level partially
because of continuity and partly because of the issues in 2518.  I am not sure,
however, that there is enough energy to survive another AD transition, and
handing off to a new AD is March is a certainty.

I encourage everyone to focus on the highest priority items *only* at this point
and to keep in mind that not getting this out means 2518 stays as the standard
for this.  I do not think that is anyone's interest at this point.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 18:54:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT