- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:35:07 -0800
- To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> As a note on this straw poll, I think that the question of whether you > have reviewed all the options in the protocol is not very relevant. > Virtually nobody has expressed an interest in implementing all the > options (at least, not in their first release). > > The relevant number is whether a sufficient number of people have > reviewed each option (which in fairness to Jim, was his question > number two). And since the options are cleanly segregated into > separate sections, I'd be happy to "defer" any option that does not > have sufficient review/support. My criteria for sufficient support is > that there are two different implementors planning on using it. Well, ideally there will have been a number of reviews of the entire document, but a high average number of reviews/option is also a good sign. I'm not interested in defering options that haven't been sufficiently reviewed, I just want to make sure they have been thoroughly reviewed. If lack of reviews of one or more options is the critical path, I suspect these sections will get reviewed quickly. I really want to see this document progress as quickly as possible, but I also need to know that it has been reviewed by a couple different pairs of eyes. It's much cheaper to fix errors now, by several orders of magnitude, than after the spec. has been implemented N times. - Jim
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 20:35:48 UTC