W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2001

(unknown charset) WebDAV Delta-V Working Group Last Call (fwd)

From: (unknown charset) Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:07:03 +0000 (GMT)
To: (unknown charset) www-rdf-interest@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
cc: (unknown charset) jamsden@us.ibm.com, paf@swip.net
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101201358560.3967-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

RDF and XP folk,

Forwarded for info; if you send in review comments please copy the RDF
or XP lists if it seems appropriate. Bear in mind that this is a last call,
so comments such as 'you should start again and use RDF/SOAP/XP/whatever'
are unlikely to be helpful. If someone were to put some time into doing
an analysis of the WebDAV/Delta-V approach in the context of things like
RDF and XP, that'd be hugely useful, as would reports from any
implementors working with both technology families in the same environment.

noteworth excerpt...
[[
If you've been waiting for a "stable" version of the specification
before performing a review, you need wait no longer.  This is it.
]]

Dan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:43:10 -0500
From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
To: ned@innosoft.com, "Patrik [iso-8859-1] Fältström" <paf@swip.net>,
     ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Subject: WebDAV Delta-V Working Group Last Call
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:46:17 -0500 (EST)
Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

*** DeltaV WORKING GROUP LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS ***

Web Versioning and Configuration Management PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION

We are happy to announce the second working group last call for comments
from the DeltaV working group on the Versioning Extensions to WebDAV
Specification, draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-12 available at
http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/deltav.html or http://www.webdav.org/deltav/.
This last call for comments period begins immediately, and ends February 1,
2001, at midnight, US Eastern time.  This allows sufficient time for review
of the specification in time for the March IETF '50 meeting.

At the end of the last call review period, a new draft will be issued.
Depending on the scope of changes introduced between the -12 and -13
versions, there will either be an immediate call for rough consensus (very
few changes), or a third last call review period (significant changes).
Once the document represents the rough consensus of the working group, I
will submit this document to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
for their approval.  IESG review involves a (minimum) two week public last
call for comments period.  This IESG-initiated last call period is in
addition to the working group last call period.

This document is intended to be a "Proposed Standard".  Quoting from RFC
2026, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3":

   The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed Standard".
A specific action by the IESG is required to move a specification onto the
standards track at the "Proposed Standard" level.

   A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience might
result in a change or even retraction of the specification before it
advances.

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required
for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Standard.  However,
such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a strong
argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation.

Many details on the procedures used to develop an IETF standard can be
found in RFC 2026, available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt

If there are any procedural questions or concerns, please do not hesitate
to contact me, or raise an issue on the list.

Notes:

1) Issues raised during the last call period will be resolved individually,
rather than lumped together and dealt with as a whole.  This follows the
issue-resolution convention being followed in the HTTP WG.

2) If you've been waiting for a "stable" version of the specification
before performing a review, you need wait no longer.  This is it.  We value
your input, but time is running out. So please review the specification now
in order to ensure your input gets included.

- Jim Amsden
Chair, IETF DeltaV Working Group
Received on Saturday, 20 January 2001 09:07:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT