- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:45:13 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
- Thanks for catching the 7.5 typo ... will fix. - Concerning the statement about working-resource and workspace options, I'm happy to delete this sentence, since I don't see that it improves interoperability, and could incorrectly lead a reader to believe that the options are inconsistent. So I'll delete this sentence unless anyone objects. - As for the complexity of the protocol, if there is something that you would like to see addressed before we send the protocol to the IESG for "proposed standard" status, please identify the specific issue during the working group last call period (i.e. before 2/1/01). It is my belief that the complexity issues have been adequately addressed by clearly identifying the part of the document that should be read by those only interested in "core" versioning functionality. Each of the options consist of functionality that is currently supported by multiple versioning repositories, and therefore it significantly contributes to interoperability to provide an option that standardizes access to that functionality. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Hale [mailto:mark.hale@interwoven.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:21 PM To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: Comments Some additional comments: - Thank you for remembering to add Section 7.5. I think that "is" should be "its". - I disagree with the following statement in Section 1: "The exception is the working-resource and workspace options. These provide the same logical functionality but with significantly different client/server performance/complexity tradeoffs. It is expected that only a limited number of servers will support both the working-resource and the workspace options." Working-resources are created when versions are checked out. A workspace resource is a collection whose members are related version-controlled and non-version-controlled resources. These are not the same logical functionality. Also, a working-resource can have a workspace property which does not make it logically orthogonal to a workspace in the context of the discussion in section 1. My suggestion is to end section 1 with the existing statement that the specification options are designed to be logically orthogonal. - Overall the specification has the necessary components and I have provided input to ensure its completeness. I do go back to a comment posted on the list a week or two about the specification's complexity. As I review the specification now, I do agree and feel that the specification is complex. I would like to see complexity revisited in Minneapolis as an action item. Thanks, Mark
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 00:46:00 UTC