W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: is DASL closed?

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:44:30 -0400
To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Message-ID: <NDBBIKLAGLCOPGKGADOJMEMLDBAA.ejw@ics.uci.edu>

Jim Davis writes, responding to Michael Mealling:
> >Ummm.. Any plans on what to do about DASL's closed working group? At the
> >apps area meeting in Adelaide the group was announced as closed...
>
> Oh dear, this is news to me, and not good news.  I suppose it serves us
> right, after so many months of dormancy.
>
> Is this true, and is it irrevocable?  Does it mean that the IETF considers
> DASL dead?  Or can it be revived?
>
> Should it be revived?  Does anyone care about DASL?

So, yes, it is true that DASL has been officially closed by the IETF, for
the reasons mentioned by Michael: no progress on the protocol specification,
milestones that are years old, and an unresponsive chair (Alex was
supposedly told by the ADs via email that DASL was going to be closed).

This does not mean that DASL is dead as a protocol development activity.
Let me repeat that: DASL is not dead. I talked on the phone with Ned Freed,
the Application Area Director for WebDAV and DeltaV, and he is very much in
favor of a DAV searching and locating protocol.  He just wants to see
externally visible progress towards this goal. It was my impression that if
we finish a DAV searching protocol, it is still very likely to be approved
within the IETF.

So, where do we go from here?  Ned Freed had several constructive
suggestions.

* Re-charter the DASL working group.

Essentially this would involve updating the existing charter, making sure
there is a strong chair and document editor, and new milestones.  I think
that if there was a new protocol document draft, and significant email on
the list, there would be no problem getting DASL re-chartered.

* Develop the DASL protocol as an individual submission

Standards track documents do not need to be developed by working groups --
it is also possible for them to be developed by individuals, and then
submitted for approval to the IESG.  This would avoid the trouble of
re-chartering the working group, but would leave DASL without a strong
framework for doing follow-on work on the protocol.


I tend to support the choice of re-chartering the working group, because I
think it would be helpful to have a chair who feels some responsibility for
ensuring that the DASL protocol is completed, and to have a working group
framework set up for handing issues that come back from implementation of
the protocol.

To the best of my understanding, if we produce a good, technically sound
protocol, it *will* get approved as a standards-track document by the IESG.
I think we should focus our efforts towards achieving this goal.

- Jim
Received on Monday, 17 April 2000 12:45:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:05 GMT