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

Re: Draft -16 out now

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:17:43 +0100
Message-ID: <456C8B57.8070006@gmx.de>
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

Ted Hardie schrieb:
> For some reason, I am only seeing Julian's replies to Cullen; this reply
> is really to Cullen, but applies to the whole thread.

Yes, there's a known issue with Cullen's emails; maybe Jim Whitehead has 
got an idea why they aren't reaching the mailing list.

> 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

The problem here is that once we got it out of the door (WGLC-wise), 
almost no follow up activities happened. There *were* LC comments, and 
most of them haven't been acted upon.

I spent a considerable amount of time maintaining a version of the draft 
  with issues and many potential resolutions, but, quite frankly, this 
doesn't seem to help in fixing the problems in the WG's version of the 
draft. I really have no idea why.

> 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).


 From my point of view, activities went away when it became clear that 
no matter how much work is done in categorizing the issues and 
discussing resolutions, none of that work made it into the WG's draft. 
Which, in fact, just expired a few weeks ago, so there was no "official" 
WG activity on the draft for over 6 months.

As a matter of fact, I was seriously considering submitting "my" version 
of the draft as a private submission just this weekend, just to get 
things going again.

> 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.

The problem aren't things that haven't improved, but changes that 
actually make it worse (in some parts). For instance, I'm insisting on 
exact language about locking *because* the lock of clarity was a problem 
in RFC2518.

> 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.

I would suggest to review the changes proposed in 
That document also lists open LC issues (with no proposed resolution), 
and any kind of constructive feedback on those would be very welcome. 
Alternatively, reviewing the open issue list at 
would be useful as well.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 19:18:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:36 UTC