RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt

Lisa,

it's just that I think a *lot* of bad mood could be avoided if there was a
time window between edits on the I-D and the actual submission. As you have
seen, many of the changes you made *are* controversial. So maybe the
approach the WG is/was using for the ACL draft makes more sense (submit when
stable instead of submit when new)?

Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:44 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt
>
>
>
> > but I really have a problem with the process here. Why is the I-D
> > submitted
> > *before* there is consensus on the changes?
> >
> To be clear, I thought that for all the issues in the draft, either:
>  - they weren't controversial,
>  - OR they were controversial but consensus (not unanimity) was close.
>
> And in any case, it's the exact wording that needs to be seen to
> determine real consensus.  When I-D's are published, it's correct to
> publish them to the I-D repository, rather than just circulate them on
> the list.  If we were only to circulate a RFC2518-bis text document on
> the DAV list, then non-list-members wouldn't have the same awareness and
> accessibility to the document that they have if documents are published
> correctly.
>
> Also, I thought this goes without saying, but nobody is implying that
> this I-D is anywhere ready for WG last call.  There are major unresolved
> issues.
>
> We always encourage discussion and if desired straw polls on the list.
>
> lisa
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 12:50:31 UTC