- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:04:22 -0700
- To: "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
I'll explain some of the background to this message, since I started the thread below its cc' list was expanded. Initially, I asked Jim Amsden if he wanted a new deltav-related internet-draft to be a working group draft or an individual submission. This explains the history and reasons behind the new internet-draft... I've talked to various people in the last few months, both those involved directly in the DeltaV WG and those mostly involved in WebDAV but keeping an eye on DeltaV. A common theme has been some uncertainty what features should be implemented for simple versioning, in software not intended for source control but just for web authoring or document management. The existing packages defined in DeltaV are a good start, but there's still lot of possible variation in how to implement a DeltaV server or client even once a package has been chosen. Thus, I've been working on a document to make it easier for simple WebDAV authoring clients to implement DeltaV, by selecting a number of features and a number of simplifications that a server can make. If a server advertises these simplifications, then the client's job is much easier (the client won't have to worry about forking, multiple checkouts, older versions getting checked out, or older versions being targetted). Both the server and the client can still be DeltaV compatible. I've posted the initial draft on http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav, and it should soon be available on the IETF site as well. I'm very much interested in hearing comments, suggestions, etc. Much thanks to Peter Raymond, Alan Kent and Mark Hale for their initial comments. Lisa -----Original Message----- From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Amsden Sent: October 18, 2001 4:35 PM To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: RE: Submission: deltav subset I'm inclined to declare victory on our DeltaV charter and let some servers get built on what we have before we start making a lot of immediate changes. Of course I would welcome any BOF to determine level of interest in extensions, new packages, etc. DeltaV is now firmly on the standards track. The next step is to get some implementation and determine interoperability issues. If the community fragments immediately on different packages that aren't interoperable in meaningful ways, then certainly that's good information for the standards process that would need to be addressed. But I think the community would benefit from attempting to implement the spec as written so we encourage interoperability. As for shutting down DeltaV, we're only at proposed standard. We could consider updating the charter to move to the next stage in the lifecycle. I would be happy to entertain suggestions as to the content of such a charter, and if there's sufficient interest, we can propose the next set of work items to the AD's as either continuation of DeltaV (with a new charter), or other working groups focused on more specific tasks. "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu> 10/18/2001 06:36 PM To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@xythos.com>, "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com> cc: Subject: RE: Submission: deltav subset Geoff Clemm writes: > I think it is more appropriate to keep it as an > individual submission until the working group has had > a chance to review/iterate on it. This may be true, but IETF policy does say that it is the Chair's discretion on whether a document is a WG draft or an individual submission. I was just pointing out that Jim may cause friction with the ADs if, by making a new WG draft, he extends the life of DeltaV when they think it's close to being shut down. I imagine they are keen to avoid another WebDAV :-) But, even if Jim does decide that it should not be a new draft, it would be well within Lisa's rights to hold a BOF at the next IETF with an eye towards creating a new WG, "SDV" (simple Delta V), say. - Jim
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 13:05:54 UTC