W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2007

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

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:43:47 -0800
Message-Id: <86D3E2F6-69D5-47E9-A5B3-01AA9E74B9D1@cisco.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Manfred Baedke <manfred.baedke@greenbytes.de>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>

Julian's draft has been around for a very long time and I think that  
you have suggested we just adopt it before so the WG certainly has  
been aware of this option. The bulk of this draft has been available  
to the WG for many months if not years and the WG did choose to use  
text out of parts of this draft.

The WG has almost no people in it at this point and very little  
energy to do any work. What you are proposing here is that  we could  
toss out the current work,  and start over with a new individual  
contributor document as the base document. At the peak of the WGs  
productivity, I would estimate this would take about two years not  
two months to get to WGLC. At the current rate of progress I would  
have to expect significantly longer.

Cullen <with my WebDav WG chair hat on>


On Jan 19, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Manfred Baedke wrote:

> 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.
>>
Received on Friday, 19 January 2007 20:44:09 GMT

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