Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

This sounds very sensible to me.

Regards,
Manfred

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>
> First, my appreciation to everyone that has participated in the recent 
> push
> to produce a revision of RFC-2518.  
>
> I have reviewed rfc2518bis-17, as well as the remaining issues in 
> bugzilla
> and the document:
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html> 
>
>
> I believe that a significantly better document could be produced 
> within the
> next 2 months, based on reschcke document.
>
> I would like to see action on the current bis document be deferred for
> that period of time, with the explicit goal of giving the working group
> an opportunity to evaluate and express a preference between the two 
> alternatives.
> We'll be living with the rfc2518bis document for a long time, so I 
> believe
> this extra two months would be time well spent.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> Julian wrote on 01/15/2007 11:42:50 AM:
> >
> > The IESG schrieb:
> > > The IESG has received a request from the WWW Distributed Authoring
> > and Versioning WG (webdav) to consider the following document:
> > >
> > > - 'HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV '
> > >    <draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> > > ...
> >
> > ...
> > At the time of this writing, there were over fifty issues opened
> > against the specification (see <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:
> > 8080/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=WebDAV-RFC2518-bis>). For many of
> > them there were suggestions resolving the problems with spec-ready
> > text (all mention some of them later on).
> >
> > ...
> >
> > For many of the open issues there *are* proposals how to resolve
> > them. The recommended changes are recorded both in the issue tracker (<
> > http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?
> > product=WebDAV-RFC2518-bis>) and an experimental draft available at <
> > file:///C:/projects/xml2rfc/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html
> > >. The latter does not resolve *all* open issues *yet*, mainly in an
> > attempt to keep the differences to the Working Group's document to a
> > manageable size.
> >
> > So I would appreciate if reviewers not only take a look at RFC2518
> > and the Last Call draft, but also to the resources above.
>