RE: Submission: deltav subset

I have my doubts that defining a common subset of DeltaV that makes sense to
a big group of people is achievable (I remember similar discussions in
xml-dev about removing "unnecessary" features from XML: everybody agreed
that there are some, but it wasn't possible to agree about *which* were
unnecessary).

In particular, Lisa's proposal says that a server MUST support the
version-history feature. Ours doesn't (and can't be easily changed to
support it). Yet, information about the existing versions can be retrieved
using REPORT, so *I* would argue this is an unnecessary feature :-).

That said, it is certainly a good thing to publish detailed information
about specific deltaV implementations (and their recommended usage).
However, I'm not so sure that this belongs into an Internet Draft.

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:11 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; Jim Amsden; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Submission: deltav subset
>
>
> I think the definition of this deltav subset is very much needed
> and that Lisa has made a very good start with it. To be more specific:
>
> - Our server falls (from deltav point of view) into the same group
>   as sharemation does: linear versioning on resources, no versioning
>   on collections. There is definitly a need for such servers.
> - DeltaV is so rich (and for good reasons) that as an implementor
>   you have to make quite a lot of choices. The definition of a subset
>   would give guidance in this process and ensure interoperability.
>   Without such a definition, I see interworking between deltav
>   servers and clients as a much longer and more painful process
>   than it needs to be.
>
> //Stefan
>
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> >
> > 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 Tuesday, 23 October 2001 08:00:11 UTC