Re: Teleconference minutes - October 25, 1999

jamsden@us.ibm.com
Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:26:18 -0400 

From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256816.0049E72B.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:26:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Teleconference minutes - October 25, 1999




---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM on 10/25/99
03:44 PM ---------------------------


Jim Amsden
10/25/99 03:21 PM

To:   Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
cc:

Subject:  Re: Teleconference minutes - October 25, 1999  (Document link:
      Jim Amsden)

<ejw>
Discussion on what should be the agenda of the official WG session.
Agreement that the first hour should be a goals presentation, and the
second
hour should be dedicated to work on a couple of outstanding issues from the
draft. Some thoughts on topics to discuss: property collections, labels &
revision uniqueness. Ideal topics are those which are meaty, but which
don't
require deep CM knowledge, perhaps only just broad WebDAV knowledge.  Next
week we'll pick who will give the goals document presentation.
</ejw>
<jra>
Sorry I couldn't make the call yesterday. Jim, thanks for taking such great
notes.

I don't think we need to go over the goals document, and would like to
avoid presentations as much as possible in favor of doing real work. The
goals document has been unchanged for a while, essentially since Milwaukee
IETF where it was presented at the Delta-V BOF. Its also pretty
understandible, as is the introduction section of the versioning protocol.
We want the next meeting to be more like a working group meeting, not
another BOF.

I also think we should pick our issues carefully. For example, the label
and revision id namespace issue might generate a lot of discussion, but
frankly, it doesn't make that much difference which way we go on this.
There are other issues that have more meaning and consequence with respect
to the protocol that should get our valuable, and limited face-to-face
time. For the agenda, I'd like to maybe do an overview of the versioning
semantics followed by a high-level walkthrough of the protocol followed by
examining the high-priority issues.

What does the rest of the working group think? What would you like us to
cover at the meeting?
</jra>